Powered by TypePad

« Don't Think Of It As Two Problems - Think Of It As One Solution | Main | Coulter-Bash »

March 03, 2007

Comments

theo

New Thread!

sylvia

Okay why does the jury instruction say this:

http://www.talkleft.com/LibbyTrial/reasonabledoubt.pdf

In a criminal cases such as this one, the government’s case must be more powerful than that. It must be beyond all reasonable doubt.

I must be more lost on this thatn I thought. I thought this was a civil case. Why does it say criminal? Are these old instructions the judge is using? Or is say, obstruction of justice considered criminal?

Other Tom

Sylvia, all of the charges in this case are criminal charges.

sylvia

Yes I figured that out already on the Jury Watch thread. But thanks anyway.

Evelyn

I would think Libby's defense team is busy this weekend planning for Monday's response. I hope they pound this point home if you are correct.

I couldn't make any sense from the 2nd question. I thought it was just me until I read the comments in the last thread.

anonymous

Happy Birthday to the brilliant Jane!

Other Tom

I remember one case, and only one, from law school where the appeal was based on a claim that a lawyer had gone beyond the allowable bounds in his closing, and had appealed to the passions and prejudices of the jury. The case had something to do with the legendary Georgia football coach, Wally Butts, who had died shortly before the trial. The lawyer stood in front of the jury, got himself all worked up, and said (I can just hear the ol' boy now) "somewhere, ladies and gentleman, somewhere up in heaven, I just know that ol' Wally is singin' "Glory, Glory to Old Georgia!"

As with all the cases I studied in law school, I remember the issues in the case but forget how it came out.

Glad I could be of some help here...

Gary Maxwell

I hat to say it Sylvia but you not being able to figure it out when people are talking about prison terms as a result of a conviction, and logically concluding that outcome could only come in a criminal trial is par for the course. Probably why you are still so confused over the false rape allegations in the Duke fiasco.

azaghal

I will confess here and now that I have reasonable doubt as to what the jury is up to with their latest note. I can think of several very different scenarios to explain that note--not all equally plausible, but none unreasonable.

Bottom line, this case is about politics (= religion), not law. To expect it to follow the usual course of criminal trials is therefore unreasonable--beyond a doubt.

:-)

Cecil Turner

I can think of several very different scenarios to explain that note--not all equally plausible, but none unreasonable.

Seems to me the most likely is that a preponderance of jurors are beating up on holdout(s). And it smacks of bullying (since it obviously wasn't written by a holdout). Based on my limited knowledge of group dynamics, it looks like a hung jury.

MarkO

When I saw that Mr. Other Tom was up at 3:30 helping out, I asked my winter associate, Mr. Google, to do some brief research on reversals for improper closing argument. Again, following Mr. Tom’s later reference to good ol’ boys, it is a South Carolina criminal case where, of all things, the prosecutor called the defendant a “liar.” Unheard of. The Honorable Court reversed the conviction and gave us hope with this wise direction:

“While we agree that the assistant solicitor's comments were improper, they do not mandate reversal alone. However, the cumulative effect of this error, when coupled with the exclusion of the previously discussed evidence, warrants reversal.”

owl

azaghal...yeah, that's about it. This group did not fact search for 3 years and have probably never connected that 4 players in this drama all sit over at NBC/MSNBC. So it is only fitting that the 4 produced the book title 'Fair Game'. Read that the movie producers have enough material from written material. That's comforting since I believe the jury is sitting there poring over that stack of clippings that Fitz was able to put as evidence.

Nice. They were able to write it, testify to it, have it entered as evidence and then make it history.

boris

And it smacks of bullying

At least derision. The holdout probably is not using "humanly possible" as their standard. More likely that's a [mis]characterization from the "slam dunk lied" group.

Other Tom

Since there's not a lot of action here this morning, I'd like to post this excerpt (from Powerline) from a piece by William Shawcross:

"Those of us who opposed the American war in Indochina should be extremely humble in the face of the appalling aftermath: a form of genocide in Cambodia and horrific tyranny in both Vietnam and Laos. Looking back on my own coverage for The Sunday Times...,I think I concentrated too easily on the corruption and incompetence of the South Vietnamese and their American allies, was too ignorant of the inhuman Hanoi regime, and far too willing to believe that a victory by the Communists would provide a better future. But after the Communist victory came the refugees to Thailand and the floods of boat people desperately seeking to escape the Cambodian killing fields and the Vietnamese gulags. Their eloquent testimony should have put paid to all illusions."

Those who go to the Powerline blog will be reminded of the views of one Sydney Schamberg, who recently held forth about how the Libby trial had created a historical record of the murderous neocons and their lust to depose Saddam dating back to 1991.

Nick Kasoff - The Thug Report

The subprime mortgage industry is in big trouble. Bankruptcy and criminal prosecution are among the challenges facing lenders in that sector. So the question is, when the remaining lenders pull out of this sector, where will the guy with a bankruptcy who is chronically late on his car payment get a mortgage?

Nick Kasoff
The Thug Report

Another Bob

sylvia | March 03, 2007 at 06:26 AM

Sylvia, as a long-time lurker and very occasional commentor, for you not to understand by this time that this is a criminal trial is mind-boggling.

Libby is not being sued for money, he is on trial for his freedom (he may go to prison if convicted) and his ability to make a living (as he will likely be disbarred if convicted).

Do you now understand why some have had little patience with your comments how?

clarice

I do so hope your take is right, Cecil.

Rick Ballard

"At least derision."

Possibly not. We've spent some pixels in discussion as to how three PhDs might be of influence within jury deliberations but no time at all in discussion of what effect the artlessly witless might have upon others. There is a slim possibility that the note is an unsubtle message (as was the request for a dictionary) that although the mean IQ of the jury was 100 it took five geniuses to get it there. Think of it as a "don't look at me, judge, you guys allowed 'em on the jury" message.

Immovable objects held in place by invincible ignorance. It isn't as if we don't see evidence of invincible ignorance provided on a daily basis right here in River City.

Other Tom

I hope Cecil is right, and I fervently hope that it is hung on every count. I've been assuming all along that it is a lone juror who is contending for the "not humanly possible" construction, but perhaps there are more than one. And perhaps that is not the construction that this juror is urging, but rather a derisive caricature of it.

I guess my predispositon to thinking it was a lone holdout was the description someone gave yesterday of one disgruntled-looking fellow appearing to hold himself apart from the others. A mighty slender reed to go on, for sure.

Semanticleo

"Based on my limited knowledge of group dynamics, it looks like a hung jury."

I do hope they will soon end the unmerciful
'informed speculations'.

Semanticleo

Here's some stuff to lighten the tension;

http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2007/03/saturday-cartoons.html

Luc

What a pleasure to read the thread today without the usual excess of nuts and trolls!! It is pleasantly easy to understand and follow the argument :)

Luc

Maybe I spoke too soon ;)

PeterUK

"I do hope they will soon end the unmerciful
'informed speculations'."
Yes Patrick Fitzgerald has probably chewed his nails up to his armpits.Val and Joe are weeping,"They don't love us,they really don't love us"
As for the poor trolls of the swamp,beating themselves into a frenzy of blood lust only to be disappointed are beginning to eat each other,"Just a leg,e' don't need no legs".
Fitzmas will never be the same again.

theo

I suppose I am being repetitive. But frankly while all sorts of things are POSSIBLE, far and away the most likely explanation for note #2 is the one Other Tom gives above. The jury is beating up on a lone holdout (or maybe a couple of them) who are holding out for acquittal on the basis that the prosecution did not prove that it was not "humanly possible" for Libby to have forgotten something he claimed to have forgotten.

As someone said, there is a holdout and (s)he is a moron but at least (s)he is our moron.

azaghal

OT, thanks for the heads up to Powerline. I believe Shawcross has written on that subject before, but a reminder is always worthwhile. The connection to the Libby case is important. I'm one who has been harping on the "big picture" aspects, and the Vietnam perspective is helpful. IMO, this case was designed as a great neocon hunt by a coalition of leftists (possibly in the Senate, as clarice maintains) and establishmentarians at DoS, DoJ and CIA. This "theological" war has its roots way back in US history, but the intel aspects certainly go back to the Vietnam/Watergate/Church Committee era. Anyone who fails to place this case within the current context of neocon v. leftist feuding over NSA/FISA/Patriot Act hasn't been reading the news (in which regard, cf. my previous link to Bret Stephen's OpinionJournal piece on the Napoleonic Code--a useful comparison). Fitz's closing was a reminder that a Libby conviction will be used by the left as more ammunition against the evil neocon cabal that lied us into war.

OT and Cecil, I certainly agree that there may be more than one "holdout"--in which case "holdout" may not be the mot juste. Nor is it possible to be certain--beyond a reasonable doubt--as to which side the "holdout" or largest grouping of "holdouts" is. One or the other of the scenarios may be more plausible, but none are unreasonable from our perspective.

My personal perspective is that this trial (small picture) was bungled by a judge who thought the "safe" way was to try to exclude the big picture as much as possible (rashly trusting Fitz). His reasoning may have been that if he could construct a nice neat trial on a few discrete issues the result would be that any conviction would be based on clear lies and an aquittal on clearly reasonable doubt. A hung jury would leave the judge in the clear. As it is, I think he miscalculated and this trial will do his reputation no good. The way it worked out has been clearly to the detriment of the defendant's right to a fair trial. And this confirms MarkO's assertion of the fundamental unfairness of the way we as a nation go about these things.

perc

A few interesting tidbits about the handwritten "reasonable doubt" note, which may suggest that there is indeed tension with the jury:
1. It looks rather...aggressively written. There is no ambiguity in that line with the arrow pointing up, and someone took enough exception to the phrase "for example" to cross it out multiple times.
2. There are at least two hands in this note; possibly three. The word 'specifically' was written by someone other than the author of the main body copy, and the inserted word "not" doesn't match the writing of the other two.
3. The word "beyond" is not normally an easily mis-spelled word, and I'm going to take a wild guess that the author was experiencing some pressure or cross-talk during the writing.
4. Originally written at 10:30 am, then a decision to proceed with the note at 2:00 pm; my guess is that this was an argument that was ongoing for most of the day.

Just my two cents. I'm neither a handwriting expert, nor did I sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night. I may be seeing what I want to see, but viewing the note actually made me the tiniest bit hopeful that at the least there might be a hung jury.

theo

Azaghal --

Let's suppose that you are right. That the whole investigation was a "neocon hunt" set up by leftists and it is part of a very long term struggle that goes back at least to the time of Vietnam, the Church Committee and all of that.

Suppose also that Lewis Libby lied to the grand jury about who he told and who told him about Wilson's wife in order to avoid being identified as a "leaker" of this information.

What should the result be? The Clintonistas used to argue that certain lies under oath were okay because, well, whatever they claimed. Are you saying that any lies of Libby under oath should be forgotten because he is a neocon?

perc

Sorry - shortened my nic there. I can't use my first or last name here since both are already in use by others.

(How my parents came up with a name like "TopSecret Hit and Run" is beyond me :o)

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

The big test for me, ahead, will be the president's mettle. He's been able to duck responsibility like nobody's business. And, if he thinks letting Libby get socked with this crap by the lunatics on the left, who are in the press. And, who live in DC. HAVE I GOT NEWS FOR HIM!

Bush's ducking days are OVER.

He either risks some political capital; or he will go down in history as a spoiled brat.

Since he is a spoiled brat, I'm not holding out much hope that Bush will do the right thing. Or that Karl Rove is even a politial genius.

It's time to separate out the junkies from the geniuses.

And, while we're at it, to get the HOUSE OF SAUD out of the string-pulling business they're in; controlling what there is of Bush's brains. While the media owns his hind-quarters.

theo

Perc --

I agree as far as it goes. There is tension on the jury -- the note drips with sarcasm. There is clearly a disagreement or there would be no point to writing the note.

The problem that I see is that the holdout has either argued or been manuevered into arguing that the reason they do see reasonable doubt is that absence of reasonable doubt requires the government to prove that some claim of the defendant is "not humanly possible."

This is NOT the law and I suspect that Walton will -- gingerly -- try to get that point across. The hold out may say "well even if that is not the law, I still have reasonable doubt" but in that case the note is a waste of time. It looks like they sent the note because the holdout told them that if that was not the law, then they would join the vote for conviction on at least one count.

boris

Suppose also that Lewis Libby lied to the grand jury about who he told and who told him

Lied? No.

The Wilsons set up a mission to Niger to undermine the justification for the Iraq war. They were not alone. The State Department and the MSM had similar agendas.

The prosecution and the court have stripped away from consideration all the outside agendas influencing the main witnesses. What remains is the out of context decision, believe 9 of them are true and 1 liar versus 1 true and 9 liars.

boris

It really is a combination of the TANG memos and the emperors new clothes.

Ralph L.

Someone keep an eye on that perc fellow. I think he's Canadian.

theo

Boris --

I am sorry. I do not quite see how your point relates to anything that I wrote much less the part that you quoted.

MY point was asking azaghal to ASSUME that Libby lied to the grand jury for purposes of answering the question that I then put to him. It is of course a classic hypothetical question designed to get past factual disputes to see if there is an underlying understanding.

One can ASSUME for purposes of such a question that Libby lied even if one very strongly believes that he did not.

theo

Boris wrote: It really is a combination of the TANG memos and the emperors new clothes.

My response: Oh thank you so much for clearing that up.

Ranger

Theo, the problem is that Fitz's argument basically boils down to "it was humanly impossible for Libby to forget such information." That is because they provided no actual "proof" that he remembered it, just very badly impeached witnesses who's memories about "very important things" really sucked. So, if a member of the jury says "wait, I think it is humanly possible for Libby to have forgotten" Fitz's case is shot.

boris

Are you saying that any lies of Libby under oath should be forgotten because he is a neocon?

Theo, Theo, Theo, WTF are you trying to pull?

That is a giant straw dummy and your last post was borderline dishonest.

theo

Ranger --

I do not think so. Is it "humanly possible" for Libby to have told Ari on Monday that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and that it was all very hush hush and on the QT and then completely forgot that he ever knew she worked for the CIA on Thursday when he spoke with Russert? Yes it is. But if the case comes down to am I "firmly convinced" that if he in fact told Fleischer on Monday that he was not surprised to hear it on Thursday, the answer is clearly "yes." Something can be "humanly possible" and yet a juror can be "firmly convinced" (which is the equivalent of "beyond a reasonable doubt") that it did not happen.

roanoke

perc-really interesting observations I'm going to have to take a new look at the note.

What bugs me about the note is-

Doesn't the foreperson have a duty to act as a fair conduit between the Court-(judge, lawyers and accused) and the jury?

It seems to me that some jurists are having to grabble with very difficult questions and the foreperson is not invested in conveying their question to the best of his or her ability.

It's a shirking of duty or responsibility.

The worst part is the jurors with the questions might have NO idea that the questions are being so poorly written.

The foreperson has the power of controlling the message that goes out and the message that comes back in to the jury from the authority -The Judge.

The foreperson reads the message-honestly to the the other jurists as-

The Judge doesn't understand YOUR question. [idiot...implied]

The jurists with the questions might not have any idea that the source of the judge's confusion is coming from the poor quality of the structure of the writng-from the foreperson. I'm pretty sure that it is the foreperson signing off on these notes.

Finally when is the last time any of us have turned over a note of such poor quality to anyone-let alone a Court, or judge?

boris

suppose you are right. That the whole investigation was a "neocon hunt" set up by leftists

There's another.

The TANG memos was not a "neocon hunt set up by leftists", it was honest MSM BDS. The evidence of agendas at State, CIA and MSM is indisputable. Your neocon hunt straw dummy is uncalled for.

bio mom

Theo, I hope you are not right about that. The holdout should be allowed to vote anonymously and not be bullied. I know that sounds naive. But if our jury system is to work, it needs to be the case. This is a CRIMINAL case. 30 years imprisonment. Not a contested high school football contest. With the problems of the politics involved and all the publicity, I don't see how the defendent gets a fair trial. Down with this valentine's tee shirt wearing giggling jury. They should be ashamed. And we should all be worried about the system. This case has changed my thinking about defendent's rights now. I think I could almost join the ACLU, if it hadn't lost its mind during the Bush administration.

Rick Ballard

"Are you saying that any lies of Libby under oath should be forgotten because he is a neocon?"

Any statement made by Libby should be examined in the brilliant light emitted by Hillary Clinton as she labored to expose the truth while suffering from Arkansas Alzheimers. Libby made an attempt to cooperate and Torquemada has shown the price that the state will exact from anyone doing so.

Of course he should be convicted - he trusted the government and anyone showing trust where none is warranted deserves whatever befalls him.

TCO - you're not aging well. You began as a fool and you're resort to sophism isn't improving your standing.

Barney Frank

--The hold out may say "well even if that is not the law, I still have reasonable doubt" but in that case the note is a waste of time.--

I think it depends on how contentious things are. If they are not particularly contentious it may just be for clarification for "OUR moron" (my favorite line from yesterday, OT).
If however things are heating up, the writer(s) of the note may not consider it a waste of time, but a club to persuade the holdout(s) to cave. If it's being used as a club the writer(s) don't know its a waste until they see whether it gets some results.
If they all show up wearing "I'm with stupid ->" shirts on Monday we'll know it's getting a little warm in there.

roanoke

Judge Walton needs to get around the foreperson and somehow let the rest of the jury know that the quality of the notes themselves are a factor in the lack of clarity.


Bruce

Anyone who believes anything Russert said is an idiot. He should be going to jail for perjury.

roanoke

Ralph L.

Someone keep an eye on that perc fellow. I think he's Canadian.

Ralph LOL!

What the hell-I'm half -Canadian-

Want I should test him?

I think I did two years of high school there I can almost speak hockey puck....

Ranger

Is it "humanly possible" for Libby to have told Ari on Monday that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and that it was all very hush hush and on the QT and then completely forgot that he ever knew she worked for the CIA on Thursday when he spoke with Russert?

Posted by: theo | March 03, 2007 at 09:48 AM

But Theo, you are making an assumption that Ari's testimony is accurate. This is the same guy who specificly denied under oath being Puincus' source. He also clearly remembered that Libby said "Plame" yet there is no evidence that Libby ever knew her name was Plame. In fact, the CIA briefer's notes have her name written very clearly as Wilson.

Now, I will buy that they talked about Wilson over lunch, but I am not convinced they every talked about "Wilson's Wife" and I am pretty certain they never talked about "Plame."

You are putting a lot of stock into Ari's testimony that may not be justified.

roanoke

Oh- Ralph I "See" it-

The email-

Sympatico.ca

Barney Frank

--Your neocon hunt straw dummy is uncalled for.--

That was azaghal's phrase.

sammy small

Another possibility for this jury, which I have personally experienced on a criminal case deliberation as foreman, is a person who refuses to deliberate. It only takes one, especially one with BDS (or in this case Rove/Cheney/Libby DS) to block any significant progress towards a verdict.

In my particular incident, the juror declared 'not guilty' and hid his face in the newspaper thereafter. He wouldn't respond to any question or discussion. This lasted three days until I convinced the judge that it was hopeless. The judge called me to the stand to inform the court what was happening, and then declared the trial over.

boris

Rick Ballard


boris

That was azaghal's phrase

Well okay, maybe the TANG memos was a neocon hunt.

azaghal

Are you saying that any lies of Libby under oath should be forgotten because he is a neocon?

Posted by: theo | March 03, 2007 at 09:26 AM

Sure, is that unreasonable?

*

*

*

*

Haha! Just kidding!

What should the result be? Or what should it have been? The appointment should have been ruled either unconstitutional or beyond the powers of the Attorney General. That would have had a salutary effect on the political environment and the abuse of the legal system that we have seen in this case for clearly political purposes. It would also have spared us the spectacle of an abusive prosecution.

Beyond that, I don't want to get into the specifics of the evidence presented at trial. I'll simply present my conclusion that the evidence as presented doesn't get anywhere close to "beyond a reasonable doubt." This really should have been a no-brainer. It is not reasonable that Libby should be held to have an infallible memory and that the version of events presented by multiply impeached witnesses should be preferred to his as beyond reasonable doubt.

I'll address what I consider to be your major point last, which is the supposition that Libby lied to a GJ to avoid embarrassment (political, professional, personal--whatever) rather than criminal prosecution for an underlying crime. One doesn't want to condone lying to a GJ. Nevertheless, neither does one want to condone the abuse of a GJ when there is clearly no underlying crime--which is my contention. Whose rights should be preferred? The (supposed) right of an individual to lie to protect himself from an illegally appointed prosecutor who is abusing the GJ process to harrass an Administration for political purposes? The (supposed) right of political operatives--masquerading as appointees and employees of the Executive branch, to empanel a GJ and conduct a harrassing investigation of an Administration for political purposes?

In the absence of an underlying crime or any showing of materiality, I'm going to go with the (supposed) rights of the individual--the jury in that case should probably nullify the prosecution, something the prosecutor should have done on his own.

clarice

I, too, think the appointment and terms of the s p are a constitutional outrage and were certain to--and did--lead to a political witch hunt.

roanoke

perc-

The "F" in Specifically is consistent with all the other "f"s-it's the top loop.

The "N" in the inserted not is the same style as the other 'n's.

But ya-how they managed to misspell beyond is beyond me.

Patton

How many jurors will we lose this weekend?
Will we have to start over?

theo

Boris --

As I think others have pointed out, I was simply trying to understand Azaghal's point. I was not saying anything about who was or was not guilty. I was trying to understand how Azaghal would react if his political conspiracy points were true but Libby in fact lied to the grand jury.

Azaghal --

I think you are just making the same argument that the Clintonistas made. Clinton should get a pass on lying under oath because he should not (in their opinion) not have been asked the questions in the first place.

I just do not agree. A citizen has every right to refuse to answer questions put to him by investigators or the grand jury. But citizens have no right to give false testimony. Our system requires that they tell the truth or say nothing at all.

boris

But citizens have no right to give false testimony

Nobody is obliged to participate in their own destruction. If lying is the only way out of a frame up or witch hunt then self defense trumps rules.

perc

Roanoke -

I share your concerns (even though, as Ralph L. pointed out, I am a Canadian - LOL - I hope it is okay to post here?) and agree that the foreperson should be showing better leadership.

And - we're even. I consider myself half-American. But please - no hockey tests! I'm a girl Canuck, and have NO clue.

roanoke

perc-


Hmmmmm-how 'bout this?

If you are Conservative-I'm betting Alberta?

theo

Boris --

You must have missed the part where I said that a citizen has a right to refuse to answer questions. Thus, no one has to participate in their own destruction. If there is a witch hunt or frame up, there is every right to refuse to answer questions. But there is no right to lie even under those circumstances. The rule of law would disintegrate if people had the right to decide whether to tell the truth or not without consequences.

Patton

Is it reasonable to assume that if Fitz believed that outing Plame had significant damaged National Security and threatened the lives of people; he wouldn't have gone so easy of Fliescher and Armitage.

Does he really believe that the guys who outed a super secret spy and got people killed should walk and the guy that says he thinks he remember sayings "I heard that too" should get 20 years.....


Should society be more concerned with giving a full pass and pat on the back to Fliescher and Armitage (The actually outers who also didn't fully reveal their involvement with Pincus and Woodward); or more concerned that if Libby ever gets out of jail, he will once again claim a reporter told him something that he didn't remember at the moment??

Should our CIA worry more about Fliescher, Armitage or Libby? My point would be that they need to worry a hell of alot more about Plame's and Wilsons that seek fame and fortune and not the silent service.

theo

Clarice --

You may be right that the investigation should not have been undertaken or should have been handled differently. But surely you do not believe that this gives people the right to lie under oath, do you?

Barney Frank

--I'll address what I consider to be your major point last, which is the supposition that Libby lied to a GJ to avoid embarrassment (political, professional, personal--whatever) rather than criminal prosecution for an underlying crime. One doesn't want to condone lying to a GJ.--

I endorse a criminal prosecution of perjury as long as it is even tangentially material, so long as it is a clearcut case of perjury or obstruction.
If there was irrefutable evidence of Libby trying to cover his tracks like Martha Stewart, I'd be hoping for a conviction, regardless of how much I may agree with Libby's politics. The evidence here is so disputable that Fitz's prosecution appears to me to be more personal spite than anything. The prosecution of Libby may not constitute a legally punishable abuse of prosecutorial discretion but it seems an unhealthy one.

WA Moore

Why assume the reasonable doubt note was written about a holdout for not guilty. It could be a holdout for guilty frustrated with a majority voting not guilty.

Walter

Happy birthday, Jane!

WA Moore

Should be "?" after first sentence.

boris

You must have missed the part where I said that a citizen has a right to refuse to answer questions.

No I didn't. It is not hard to concoct a scenario where staying mute in a witch hunt or frame up leads to one's destruction.

boris

people had the right to decide whether ...

Wrt self defense they do have the right.

Barney Frank

--It could be a holdout for guilty frustrated with a majority voting not guilty.--

That's true. If it is true however that means up to ten of them are OUR morons. :)

roanoke

Ga! One more thing or a couple of things before my WiFi decides to randomly drop me for the umpteenth time.

Can a foreperson be demoted?

Have any of the lawyers here seen notes from other juries this rough?

Finally -all the shots the Defense took at Matt Cooper about the poor quality of his notes, -well that argument was definitely lost on the foreperson.

clarice

theo--I don't think he lied.
OTOH the scope of the corruption of this process permeates every aspect of this trial. For example, it is a fundamental that gj testimony is given w/o counsel present--therefore, w/ no limitations on relevancy,repetition, lack of clarity or probity-- and is supposed to be secret. While I long believed that the "leaks" about the gj were fantasies or reports by private counsel and witnesses, looking back I see signs that some may well have come from the government side, particularly Eckenrode.
And then, Fitz placed all of Libby's testimony into the record over his counsel's pbjections.

Patton

Theo says: ""The rule of law would disintegrate if people had the right to decide whether to tell the truth or not without consequences."""

You mean like FBI agents? Prosecutors?

What?

Only targets are not allowed to lie....just look at Armitage and Fliescher, both liars, both safe.
This isn't about lying...The FBI agents lied to their notes and admitted it under oath..they won't be prosecuted. Fitz lied in his press conference...no charges filed.

This is about power, this is using the laws to fit your own ends. Fitz didn't even attempt to conduct a full and complete investigation. He has hid behind DOJ guidelines to create a he said/she said and then waved dead bodies in front of the jury.

boris

Don't think Libby lied either. The scapegoat self defense argument is strictly hypothetical against "no right to lie" argument.

If Libby lied to Cooper "didn't know if it's even true" and told the same lie to the GJ there needs to be a sensible reason that covers both or less sensible reasonS to use the same useless lie both times.

Much more likely that's what Libby knew at the time of the Cooper conversation and during the investigation.

goldwater

At the beginning of this circus, I seem to recall that the prosecution needed to prove not only that Libby lied, but that his lies were significant to the investigation.

If Fitzgerald knew that Armitage had leaked to Novak how can anything Libby have said have any significance.

theo

Clarice --

I understand that you believe he did not lie. (My own view is that the evidence that he did does not rise to the level of "beyond a reasonable doubt.")

But that is not the issue I was addressing. For purposes of this discussion please ASSUME that he did lie. Should he be excused because of the way the prosecutor was appointed or went about his business? I think not.

The fact that his grand jury testimony was taken without his lawyer present and was under seal means nothing. THat is true of all grand jury testimony (or maybe with a couple exceptions). It most certainly does not give one an excuse to lie.

Yes, Fitz played his testimony to the jury. But that was in a case in which he was prosecuting Libby for lying to the grand jury. You cannot prove that case without establishing what he said to the grand jury. And playing it all is a good way to avoid an argument that he took somehting out of context.

I understand that there are a lot of partisan feelings here. I certainly hope for an acquittal. I do not want to see the BDS crowd get even more smug and arrogant.

But if Libby in fact lied, I see no excuse for that.

bio mom

Think the foreperson is the lawyer?? Seems a natural choice.

boris

please ASSUME that he did lie. Should he be excused because of the way the prosecutor was appointed or went about his business? I think not.

Wrong way to approach your point.

ASSUME that Libby told a coherent credible lie and does not get charged with anything. Who is not okay with that?

azaghal

Azaghal --

I think you are just making the same argument that the Clintonistas made. Clinton should get a pass on lying under oath because he should not (in their opinion) not have been asked the questions in the first place.

I just do not agree. A citizen has every right to refuse to answer questions put to him by investigators or the grand jury. But citizens have no right to give false testimony. Our system requires that they tell the truth or say nothing at all.

Posted by: theo | March 03, 2007 at 10:10 AM

Not so. There was an underlying crime in the Clinton case. My presentatin explicitly stated that there was no underlying crime in this case--but of course you chose to ignore that.

Your second point has more merit. However, it would have the detrimental effect of allowing political opponents to abuse the GJ process by driving their targets from office. For political reasons this president decided to maintain that his employees had to renounce their constitutional rights and cooperate with what I have characterized as an illegal investigative process--or leave his employ. If Libby had actually intended to lie, then yes he should have resigned. But my belief is that in fact Libby is telling the truth to the best of his recollection and that several important witnesses have been shown to have (probably) lied in significant respects. Your bright line principles come out with some murky looking results in the real world. What would be worse for the country--one man lyinng about a non-crime, or the institutionalization of GJ abuse for political purposes?

clarice

The case is complicated enough w.o a need to invent a hypothetical. I leave metaphysics to others . My feet are stuck to the earth, I'm afraid.
As for reasonable doubt it is pervasive to me in every aspect of his testimony. And I promise you 8 hours in the gj w/ Javert and everyone of us would sound like he was speaking gibberish.

CAL

Theo,

To answer your question for all of us, I don't think anyone here condones lying under oath.

However, even granting you assumption that Libby did lie, something most of us here don't believe, it doesn't necessarily rise to the level where it should be prosecutable.

In order to be perjury, the lie has to be material to the case. In order to obstruct justice, the lie has to in some way hinder the investigation. Since Libby told the gj he first learned of Mrs. Wilsons CIA connection from Cheney, what difference does his state of mind matter when he again heard it from reporters? How is it relevant to any leak investigation and how does it obstruct anything?

Beyond this, why focus on Libby for lies? Armitage was less than forthcoming with Fitz and made a pretty big fool out of him. Fleischer is contradicted by four people which I would think voids his immunity since he was supposed to tell the truth in exchange.

After this trial is over, should Miller be brought up on perjury charges for claiming she doesn't remember who her other sources were? Should Russert be charged for claiming he didn't know you can't have a lawyer in a gj session? These lies are both more germane to this trial than Libbys possible lies were to a leak investigation.

perc

bio mom -

I think the foreperson is one of the PhD's.

roanoke

theo-

Well I'll accept your hypothetical.

What then? To add the splippery slope argument-punish everyone for lying? Libby even though it didn't obstruct the government's investigation.

In fact it looked like they handicapped themselves with their obseesion over scoring the big fish -and voluntarily dealt immunity to parties with more "guilt" than Libby.

What is Libby's supposed criminal intent?

He got in Fitzgerald's way in the pursuit of the truth?

Hell Imus had a lot better luck with that -getting to the truth and he did it at no expense to the taxpayers.

I agree that people shouldn't lie but what is the practicality to enforcing that without an actual crime being committed?

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

In the prosecution's favor, you see the press as hand maidens. And, you also see the harms done to Martha Stewart.

So, yes. The government can extend the life of laws to hurt ordinary citizens. Something they've been doing with alacrity for years and years. Even RICO has become a farce.

Yet? There's a good chance Guiliani will get elected. And, while Fitzgerald won't get any "rewards," they'll still go to his ilk.

And, the atrocious monstrosity called "judicial discretion" will continue to live on our system LIKE A CANCER DOES.

roanoke

biomom-

I was thinking about taking another look at the make up of the jury and seeing who would fit.

The math guy is taking a huge hit at Talk Left because they suspect that "he" is the hold out.

Also-some at Fire Dog Lake earlier before the notes were coming out were saying that they thought the 'math guy' was the foreperson.

Math Guy-is getting scapegoated for everything!

theo

CAL --

I guess you (and others) are making a couple of points.

One is essentially "selective prosecution." Other people may have lied and were not prosecuted. Why should Libby get nailed for his lies (if he in fact lied)?

I do not think that this argument flies. It certainly is no excuse for Libby to have lied (if he did). The fact that every liar is not prosecuted should not mean that lying under oath is no longer a crime. Our justice system would collapse if this were so. (And this really IS, despite the denial, the Clintonista argument. What was the "underlying crime" with Lewinsky? They had the same arguments about a political witch hunt and all of that. It was a bad argument then and it is a bad argument now.)

Your other argument is basically "materiality." I think this is and should be a very low standard. Lies under oath cannot be excused because no one died or no national security secrets were revealed or otherwise no dire consequences resulted. People simply should not be permitted to choose to lie and later easily avoid consequences by saying "show me the great harm that was done." The rule of law requires that people give honest testimony (or none at all). The "materiality" issue should only come up if the matter is totally trivial. In this case, it is not remotely a close question. IF Libby lied -- and I am not saying he did and I in fact would vote to acquit on the "reasonable doubt" standard -- his lies were manifestly "material" as that term is understood in the law.

Jane


The reason I don't think Libby lied is that he could have done such a better job of it, if that was his intent.

miriam

This trial is a vendetta by Fitz against Libby.

theo

clarice --

In your 10:40 post you ducked the issue. But at least you had the grace to admit that you were ducking the issue.

But I think the hypothetical is illuminating. Are we defending Libby because we believe that he is innocent? Because we think his guilt has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Or because we believe that even if he is guilty of the offense charged there is some other reason to absolve him of responsibility?

You may call it metaphysics, but I think it is important for everyone to come to grips with what it is exactly that they believe.

azaghal

Clarice --

You may be right that the investigation should not have been undertaken or should have been handled differently. But surely you do not believe that this gives people the right to lie under oath, do you?

Posted by: theo | March 03, 2007 at 10:19 AM


And yet where is your outrage over the Comey/Fitz ESP affidavit? Rather selective in your outrage, aren't you? And there are many additional legitimate targets for outrage. The entire bias of our constitution is to protect the rights of the citizens--or to balance their rights with the legitmate needs for organized society. This case is replete with abuse of the rights of individuals and misuse of government powers, yet your outrage is all one-way.

BTW, in your reply to Ranger you assume that Libby's crime was to lie to Russert several days after speaking to Ari, when in fact the alleged crime was lying to the GJ nearly 3 months later. 3 months is a reasonable time for anyone to forget what they said to whom in a busy life. Nuff said.

azaghal

theo, now I know you're a troll. First you present a "hypothetical" and then you turn and say that our replies to the hypothetical represent our true reasons for supporting Libby.

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

I'm willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that there's no acquittal in site.

Libby? Since I'm not sure Martha Stewart, in her business life, has been harmed by the black judge, and dumb jury that "heard" her case; I think things tend to return to "normal."

But the profession of the law? Not much good to say about it.

About on par with the other weak credentials, that leads to people getting Ph.D's, when all they have is "expertise" in phony-baloney language skills. And, manipulation.

Bush, too, will hide in the closet.

Which is the real shame.

But what can you do? None of the Bush's have speech making skills. And, then tend to hire flunkys. Like that monkey Harriet Miers. And, the current AG, Gonzales.

What's more amazing is the sizes of their ambitions! Miers thought she deserved the seat on the Supreme's. DITTO Gonzales. Who may, in fact, be baaack. (Unless the democrats put up a fuss.) And, the conservatives figure out they didn't get much in terms of having this jerk in the white house, either.

What's going on this weekend? As the jurors go about buying wardrobes? And, the ladies getting their hairdo's done? I'll bet WELLS is working harder than ever to make a coherent plea STICK on the DC CIRCUIT.

But it's tough to get judges, all of whom are political appointees, to see the harms they are doing to the very business they serve.

Me? I've been laughing at what passes for justice, for years and years.

And, this jury? In the end they'll look like the clowns who gave OJ his freedom.

And, the clowns on the DC police department, who couldn't find Chandra Levy's body. Or were even willing to admit to the crime rates that plague DC. Which only make things worse.

For the Condit's? Retirement in Arizona. Plus, Mrs. Condit picked up about a million bucks from the industry that soiled her name.

Libby, too, doesn't have a working future. Bright man. Legal bills.

And, the conservatives who were kind enough to spend the money that made this "show" possible, by contributing to his defense fund?

We will see the hampsters happy, and dancing on their wheel. But the trial, itself, is just a joke. And, maybe, there will be comedians, who treat THIS, the way the Warren Commission Report got to be discarded as nothing but a clown show. One bullet just can't fly high enough.

And, Libby's conviction won't leave people too terribly impressed with waltoon, either.

Politics is a dirty business. Smart people, with money, just may choose to stay away?

theo

Jane --

Happy birthday again.

I think that argument goes in the "reasonable doubt" category. Since I am in the same category, I suppose I should not quibble with you. But if you reconstruct the whole thing it is not that hard to see what he was thinking at the time. Yes, in hindsight he should have said "Grossman and these other people told me and then I told Ari and Miller and I do not recall anything about Russert" and he would not even have been charged. But that was not what it looked like at the time.

To me, reasonable doubt comes from the fact that memory is a pretty peculiar thing. Almost every witness had some memory issue. It is not beyond a reasonable doubt to me that any mis statements of his were deliberate lies.

boris

IMO if Libby had lied he would not have been prosecuted and tried.

In the situation where it's lie and get off versus truth and risk prosecution, what then?

The obvious answer quit and take the 5th.

Seems he thought the risk was small and took it to either (1) exonerate the OVP or (2) keep his job. Probably (1) or both.

Other Tom

Libby's right not to testify was somewhat compromised by Bush's orders that no one should take the Fifth, but I suppose he could have resigned and then taken it. Still...

If there were a majority for acquittal, and a holdout for guilty, I'm having a hard time figuring why the note would be worded as it is. That would seem to require that there is a majority who subscribe to the "not humanly possible" standard. That is, "our morons" are in the majority. Wouldn't that be grand?

perc

theo -

Forgive me for saying but I think your argument is approaching Monty Pythonesque porportions.

theo

I agree Other Tom.

theo

Perc --

Which argument and how so?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame