Open Thread Sunday

Evidently my ISP is bad again, but here is a robo-thread.

Comments

[sbw]

OT And I get to see my son's college baseball team today and the Yankees play in Spring Training tomorrow. In spite of the morass in Washington, life is good. /OT

Good morning, all.

[Other Tom]

"And I remember what she said to me
How she swore that it never would end
I remember how she held me oh so tight
Wish I didnt know now what I didnt know then."

--Bob Seger, "Against the Wind," 1980

[Jane]

Hey SBW,

Except for the fact that the Yankees suck, that sounds about as good as it gets!

[Other Tom]

“Is it necessary for the government to present evidence that it is not humanly possible for someone not to recall an event in order to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?”

I tell ya, folks, I've been staring at that language for a long time now, and I just can't twist myself into a posture where it looks like there's a majority for acquittal. But MarkO offers this:

"Suppose there are jurors who want to find reasonable doubt and some who are claiming that the only way the jury can find reasonable doubt is if it is not humanly possible to remember the statement Libby can’t remember...With this question, the jury is trying to tell a dissenter that reasonable doubt can be found without the extreme position taken by one or more of them."

Seems plausible. What troubles me is that the "not humanly possible" language seems intentionally loaded for the purpose of eliciting a "no" answer from the judge. I don't think the group leaning toward acquittal would ever use this language.
This looks much more like something that was rammed past a none-too-bright lone wolf.

What to make of the fact that the second "not" had to be inserted into the text after it was initially drafted? WTF were these people thinking?

And I'll guarantee you, any judge who answers such a convoluted question with anything other than the standard instruction is really leading with his chin.

[kate]

Yes, when I try to get rid of one of the negatives it is even more snarky and just as confused:

Is it necessary for the government to present evidence that it is humanly impossible for someone not to recall an event in order to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

[kate]

OT, not really because this is an open thread.

AP gave me a bad case of nerves this am when I opened my Yahoo page and read:

Attack on US convoy leaves 16 dead.

They have since changed the headline but the story is in Afghanistan and the dead are Afghan "civilians". A more anti-US hit piece you'd be unlikely to find.

The writer of the piece had a Muslim name and he could only find anti-US witnesses. He implied that the US soldiers were cowards who were firing on civilians as they "fled".

How can we win this war when a major American wire service is subcontracting its reporting out to our enemies.

BTW-this story is all over the globe.

[clarice]

Someone noted that from the way 7 is written the author does not appear to be a native English speaker.

I find it hard to be optimistic about the note, but both the WaPo and NYT--which did have reporters wathing the jury-- and Isikoff who commented on their demeanor have a rosier take than we do.

I suppose one could read it:
Is it necessary for the government to present evidence that it impossible for someone to forget in order to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

In any event I agree, the judge will probably reread the instructions on reasonable doubt AND memory.

[dorf]

I think there are one or two holdouts for not guilty and the rest are going to ram the reasonable doubt instruction down their throats after the judge reads it on Monday. Verdict back by 2pm for guilt or hung 10-2.

[centralcal]

Other Tom: I agree with MarkO - I think there is a majority for acquittal based on reasonable doubt. That's really all they have to say - "I (we) have reasonable doubt."

The hold-out(s) who have to argue AGAINST reasonable doubt (to acquit) would be harder pressed to find a definition of reasonable doubt that would allow them to dig in their heels against the others, in order to convict.

I said in the very first thread about this that when you look at the two notes written by the jury foreman (I printed them out full size) you see (despite different pens) the fluidity of one note and the struggle in the other note. I think the note written in the morning was dictated by the hold-out. Read back and then, edited (insertions of specifically and not). The foreman didn't write it as fluidly as the first note, because it was not his thought process - it was someone elses.

Anyway, that was my gut feeling the moment I printed out the notes and I still feel that way. If I was a lone hold out for acquittal and feeling pressure by others for conviction, I would simple say over and over "I have reasonable doubt that such and such happened and nothing you say can convince me otherwise." I sure wouldn't feel a need to enhance or convolute "reasonable" or "doubt." I see that as something one who REFUSES to entertain reasonable doubt (as commonly defined) doing.

I know the majority of posters here do not agree with me at all. So all I can say is "I have reasonable doubt" about the meaning of the note and I am not gonna change my mind (or yours - ha).

[kate]

dorf ... it would be 9-2. Only 11 left. What makes you say 2?

[Other Tom]

Funny--I've been making my 7's that way (with the line through them) for forty years or more now. I forced myself to get in the habit of it because I so often was unable to read my own lousy handwriting.

[dorf]

Kate: new math, sorry. Ummm, you know, its gut, that's all I have. I have always thought this jury wanted to assign blame and protest the war with this verdict.

[Sue]

“Is it necessary for the government to present evidence that it is not humanly possible for someone not to recall an event in order to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?”

What if the 2nd "not" was inserted in the wrong place?

“Is it necessary for the government to present evidence that it is not humanly possible for someone to **not** recall an event in order to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?”

Does it make more sense to anyone read that way?

[dorf]

Sue: yes, you got it.

[Sue]

Funny--I've been making my 7's that way (with the line through them) for forty years or more now.

A girl I work with has been doing that since I have known her. Born and bred Texan. I see no significance in the way the 7 is written.

[Other Tom]

Sue, I don't know if it makes more sense that way, but it sure gets my archaic split-infintive attenae twitching.

[kate]

dorf: no problem. If there are 2 with reasonable doubt they might hold. One will cave within hours, I agree.

[Jane]

Funny--I've been making my 7's that way (with the line through them) for forty years or more now.

I've done it forever too. I remember starting, but don't remember why or when.

Anyway, they look better that way.

If you look at the first note, the 7 is not crossed, but I think that is a failure in the copy.

[Patrick]

Had my son's birthday party yesterday. Man, those 5 year olds show a disturbing lack of a grasp of even the most basic facts about the Libby trial. I blame the MSM.

[Jane]

Anyone else see Lindsay Graham on MTP? I only caught a bit of it, and I go off and on about Graham, but boy was he elegant about the need to win this war. It was breathtaking.

Timmeh still looks pretty bad. Seems like this verdict is wearing on him too.

[Semanticleo]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/02/AR2007030201949_pf.html

Open thread is code for: "Things I'd rather not go out on a limb over" eh, Maguire?

Is this the moral equivalence of 'TravelGate',
as is lying about sex versus lying us into war?

[Semanticleo]

BTW;

Even Patterico is outraged. Heh.

[Semanticleo]

I question the outrage.

[kate]

That lying us into war is so tedious. Everyone knows that the entire international community believed Saddam had WMD.

The fact that the left gets away with the garbage is another indicator of how bad we're losing the information war.

[Semanticleo]

"losing the information war."

Garbage in, garbage out.

[boris]

you should know

[kate]

Since the "garbage" came from the Clinton Administration and was echoed by Democratic senators, I thought you'd be a fan.

[richard mcenroe]

That's how they taught us to write "7" in the Army, for commonality with NATO formats.

[clarice]

Mark Sreyn on Rev Al--If thi is an "ecological holocaust", Gore's pad is Auschwitz..

http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/281949,CST-EDT-STEYN04.article>His Barminess

[Mark_0454]

When I lived in Switzerland they crossed their 7's. It was so a 7 would not be confused with a 1. They added a leading upward stroke to a 1.

[Jane]

I love love love Mark Steyn

[clarice]

You'll have to mud wrestle me for him, Jane.

[Other Tom]

Because it delights me so much to do it, for darling Cleo's benefit I will quote H. Rodham Clinton from October, 2002 on the floor of the United States Senate:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security. Now this much is undisputed . . ."

Note carefully the phrase, "in the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reporst show..." At this juncture, Buhitler had only been lying in office for 21 months. Tell us, Cleo, who was doing the lying and the intelligence-twisting in the preceeding 2 1/2 years?

[centralcal]

Jane and Clarice: I love Mark Steyn too. I am glad to see him making more appearances on the telly. Not only is his writing great, but his delivery on television is even better. I wish he had a weekly show.

[clarice]

More Steyn:"So Al can buy his carbon offsets from himself. Better yet, he can buy them with the money he gets from his long-time relationship with Occidental Petroleum. See how easy it is to be carbon-neutral? All you have do is own a gazillion stocks in Big Oil, start an eco-stockbroking firm to make eco-friendly investments, use a small portion of your oil company's profits to buy some tax-deductible carbon offsets from your own investment firm, and you too can save the planet while making money and leaving a carbon footprint roughly the size of Godzilla's at the start of the movie when they're all standing around in the little toe wondering what the strange depression in the landscape is."

[Lew Clark]

That's what I remember. A line through the 7 so it wouldn't be confused with a 1 and a line through a zero so it wouldn't be confused with the letter O. I never liked them. Just be neat on the seven and there is no problem. Zero and that round letter is another thing. I have noticed that often programmers will make zero and that round letter both work. Like a password of "ftw09f35" works if you hit either a zero for the fourth symbol or that round letter.

[Semanticleo]

Tell us Thomasina, why does this admin hate the troops so much it allows our most seriously wounded outpatients to suffer from neglect?

[kate]

The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
I am still furious with AP over its Afghan story. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070304/ap_on_re_as/afghan_violence

[Jane]

You'll have to mud wrestle me for him, Jane.

I'm willin'. But will it sell tickets?

[clarice]

HEH--Only if the price includes margarita grandes, I'm afraid.
Steyn is such a genius though. I agree, I wish he had his own show on tv--what about the H & C slot?

[kate]

Please take the H&C slot. Don't get me started about Hannity. Steyn would be great...a conservative advocate not concerned with celebrity (Coulter/Rush) and one who is really smart.

[bio mom]

After reading recent summaries of the Libby trial events from R and F in the Main stream Media, I am beginning to have the suspicion that they would prefer that Libby NOT be convicted. Their interpretations of the notes, for example, are actually more favorable to possible acquittal than the majority of the comments here!! Maybe these guys have consciences that are bothering them. They really liked the bash against Bush all of this caused. But now a man could be imprisoned for 30 years. Maybe they are rethinking their position. Just a feeling I have. Could be all wet.

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

All I got so far from the "notes" is that they're written by ONE WOMAN. And, she seems to have an axe to grind.

Is she reflecting the opinions of other jurors? Or not? What if she's in control of the "pencil." But not the hearts and minds of all the jurors, present?

What if the "real time element," here, has been DIFFERENCES? Not solved by the note taker. BEST OUTCOME? ONE HUNG JURY !

And, the way to tell? Anything, NOT solved, t'marra, will remain unsolved. SInce factions are notable for their abilities to dig in their heels. And, not come up with compromises. Is this possible? When they agreed on the stupid valentine, tee-shirt singing affair? DUNNO.

Don't care. It's as if we're tossing what kids used to be taught as "the greatest thing since sliced bread," the American jury system. Down the toilet.

It's an inconvenience to get summoned. And, the worst factor of all? IF you're INSIDE the courtroom, "getting chosen," you're hoping for some reason, the the lawyers don't like ya. So you can go home. EARLY.

I still think the jurors are unaware of how little traffic this trial is getting. Even though they see the courtroom is crowded when they go IN. And, they have high-faluten ideas of grandeur to give them impetus to dress nicely t'marra.

I don't think those hearts that haven't been swayed, will get swayed, ahead.

ANd, Fitzgerald doesn't even have the gravitas of Ken Starr.

Let alone the "phrasing" of "HE LIED." Since Bubba and Sandy Berg(l)er, and HIllary, the pill, herself, don't get the donks to make waves.

Just going after Bush is now a past time? Or is it just past it's prime?

[clarice]

Well, the note is signed by the foreman and from t-shirt day we learned the foreman was a man. Now, perhaps its was written by the dissenting (or one of) the dissenting jurors, but it seems in the same hand as note 1.

[Avon]

"When I lived in Switzerland they crossed their 7's."

Completely OT, but this gives me an excuse to mention my candidate for amusing headline of the week. (I'm not making this up):

"Swiss army accidentally invades Liechtenstein"

Not, _that's_ an intelligence failure...

[Jane]

Maybe these guys have consciences that are bothering them.

Bio Mom,

That's not it, I don't think. If Libby is convicted it will reflect very poorly in a million ways on the press (as it already does) and they fear having the spotlight shone on them too brightly. So they are trying to hedge their bets. (And for all the people who ask what we will be doing when the trial is done, I hope we will continue to focus the high beams on the partisen idiots that call themselves reporters, for a long time to come.)

[kate]

clarice - are you sure the foreman was a man. I thought the foreman was chosen when the deliberations begin. I thought the tee-shirts were worn before the deliberations. I would agree that the man who made the statement on behalf of the jurors would be elected foreman but I thought that happened when the jury begins deliberations, not before.

[centralcal]

Since the commenters here have all kinds of knowledge, anyone know how to get an email through to Roger Ailes?

I would love the opportunity to petition for a Steyn show (and a couple of other suggestions/critiques about other shows already on). I think we should start a petition for Steyn on FoxNews.

[Other Tom]

Cleo sweetheart, the adminstration doesn't allow it at all. If you haven't been catching the news lately, the commanding officer of Walter Reed has been fired, and the Secretary of the Army has been forced to resign. The troops know who hates them and who doesn't--why don't you ask them their views? Do you know anyone in uniform?

[clarice]

Kate-- You are probably right now that I think of it.

[Other Tom]

Bio Mom: Who are R and F?

[centralcal]

Oh, Jane! I am so with you on this comment:

"(And for all the people who ask what we will be doing when the trial is done, I hope we will continue to focus the high beams on the partisen idiots that call themselves reporters, for a long time to come.)"

The media bias is what enables and abets much of what we see going on in our system that troubles so many of us. Apuzzo, as we saw was able to REPORT, rather than propagandize. We need so much more of that - true reporting, instead of biased editorializing, or worse, outright lies and fabrications.

[Semanticleo]

"and they fear having the spotlight shone on them too brightly."

Especially after their support for the Iraq debacle.

*Note their successful countering of the;
"Iran is manufacturing and delivering EFD's
to Iraq" spin of the week.

[clarice]

ailes@foxnews.com
I'm in. Draw up the petition.

[swarren]

Centralcal:

"I think there is a majority for acquittal based on reasonable doubt. That's really all they have to say - "I (we) have reasonable doubt."

The hold-out(s) who have to argue AGAINST reasonable doubt (to acquit) would be harder pressed to find a definition of reasonable doubt that would allow them to dig in their heels against the others, in order to convict."

And based on her demeanor, the holdout FOR conviction is THIS GLOWERING, STOIC WOMAN described by Isikoff.

http://isikoff.talk.newsweek.com/default.asp?item=512223

[Neo]

Speaking of Iran .. the Iranians must have been "dissed" by the Saudis big time as Ahmadinejad didn't even stay the night.

[Other Tom]

Still waiting for an answer, Cleo: Who was doing the lying about Saddam, Al Qaeda and WMD in the 2 1/2 years before Bush took office? Cat got your tongue?

[Ralph L.]

Sleo, the end of your WaPo link got cut off and doesn't work.

[centralcal]

Cool Clarice. The folks here have ino on everything. You probably don't want me to write the petition (we would like it to be received well by Roger, after all and I am not a writer, as my comments will well attest.)

However, I will sign and circulate a petition and I will most definitely email Mr. Ailes (probably later today, after my babysitting of the short people duties are done).

[bio mom]

R means Thursday and F means Friday.

[Barry]

"I have noticed that often programmers will make zero and that round letter both work. Like a password of "ftw09f35"..."

Try this:

Part # HG03596

Is the "0" a letter or a number? A slash will let you know for sure.

[Paul Zrimsek]

The Goracle's finally fgiured out his problem: he's ahead of the news cycle! (h/t Tim Blair.)

[Patton]

Judge has a memorandum opinion up appeals:

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/files/030207_walton_evidentiary_opinion.pdf

[Another Bob]

Ralph L. | March 04, 2007 at 09:40 AM

You need to reduce the text size to get the entire link text visible.

The story is about the US attorneys fired by the administration. Yawn.

I can think of one more that should be fired.

[theo]

Steyn's book "America Alone" is a very worthwhile read. It is typical Steyn -- funny, informative, impassioned and ultimately quite serious. Strongly recommend it to anyone who wants to understand the larger picture of our global conflict.

On the jury notes, I guess we have said it all. Those who want to keep hope alive can keep parsing away. But it seems pretty obvious to me that, as someone said the other day, there is a moron on the jury, but (s)he is our moron.

[MarkO]

To Leo

Earl got your tongue?

[theo]

Oh and not to go too overboard in Steyn idolization, but I heard him sing some song parodies on Bill Bennett's radio show and Mark is also a pretty decent singer. I think he was/is a theatre critic so maybe that is where that comes from.

[Jane]

Clarice, OT (anyone who does appeals)

How odd is it for a Judge to release a memoranda during jury deliberations?

[clarice]

Jane, I took a quick look at it and it seems to be a memorialization of his Mitchell ruling..I understand from last hurrah his clerk's last day was Friday which explains the timing. I can't see that there's any difference between issuing it at the time of his oral rulings, during jury deliberations or after, frankly.

[Jane]

.I understand from last hurrah his clerk's last day was Friday which explains the timing.

Why wouldn't he just hold it until deliberations are over, to see if he even needs it?

[Semanticleo]

Ralph;

Google, "White House Backed U.S. Attorney Firings, Officials Say"

[theo]

Jane --

In long trials they tend to issue the rulings whenever. They did the work and they are waiting so they might as well get it out. Plus maybe he wants it to go into F Supp as a precedent.

This is pretty typical in my experience.

[Ralph L.]

Thanks Bob.

[clarice]

Obviously,I think he anticipates if there is a guilty verdict there will be an appeal of this issue which is why he wrote the memorandum. I have no idea why he couldn't wait. He just chose not to. (Unless there is some local practice or rule I am unaware of.) Perhaps he thought it would appear a more transparent course of action if he released it before knowing the outcome.

[Barry]

Well, I do wish we did not refer to the only apparent juror with sanity as our "moron". I'm of the opinion it is the others who are morons. That is, if the tea leaf readings are correct. Which I doubt. I've never had much hope for this jury considering the venue and the evidence that was not considered.

[clarice]

Cleo:"Ralph;

Google, "White House Backed U.S. Attorney Firings, Officials Say"

******And what significance is that to you? Do you like Sanchez the Idiot think the US Attys are part of the judiciary branch? The president appoints US Attys and fired them. They are part of the Executive branch and he is--like-the Chief Executive.

OTOH since Fitz thinks there's something illegal about responding to WH critics, perhaps he will see fit to expand his mandate and call a gj to see if the boss can fire them? Heh, now there's an idea!

[MarkO]

I sent this to Other Tom this morning and drop in into the pool here.
I doubt my spin approaches the real status of the case. When they asked for masking tape I saw no good that could come from that. There are PhD's and a lawyer on the jury. The foreman is apparently illiterate.
It is an odd trial and an odd world in which Wilson and Fitz can argue that there was a leak of a covert CIA agent and never show any proof that it is or was true.
I am also troubled by the thought that through all the rehearsals of his testimony, and you damn well know there were many, Libby did not create a more comprehensive lie, if, indeed, he is lying.
As to the reason I’m even attempting some spin on that note, in my litigation experience I have always be wary of things that looked to me to be stupid. I say that I always treat the opposition as if they were smarter than I. If I think something is stupid or not understandable, I have tried to revisit it until I can see why the other side has done it. In the end, it may turn out to be stupid, but then I won’t be.
So I’m trying to read this in any way other than a derisive characterization of a juror’s position and a request that the Judge tell that juror how wrong he is. I suspect there is a juror, probably two because one would likely fold, that takes the position that people forget and that it is not realistic to expect a person to remember this and that the prosecution did not put on evidence to show that it would be impossible to have forgotten. Those who favor conviction want support from the judge.
If the judge does anything except tell the jury to re-read the instructions, it is error. But, I think Walton has been in Fitz’s pocket most of the trial.

[roanoke]

Well I think it's highly probable that the rest of the jury might not even know how badly written the notes are.

I'm hoping there is a way for Judge Walton to convey to the rest of the jury that a great source of the lack of clarity of the notes is coming from how poorly written they are.

[theo]

Barry --

Well the understanding of the phrase "reasonable doubt" ascribed to the holdout(s) by the writer of the note is pretty ridiculous.

I think reasonable doubt does exist in this case but under the actual standard and not some fantasy one. Perhaps the holdout(s) will not cave when they realize that reasonable doubt means something other than they have suggested.

You make a good point that sometimes gets lost in all the details. Venue really matters. Look at OJ. If he had been tried in Santa Monica he would be living rent free as a guest of the State right now. (Indeed the civil trial was there and look at the result.) If Libby were being tried in a place with less rampant of a BDS epidemic I think it could be different as well.

But this jury does seem to be carefully reviewing the evidence, which is always a good sign.

[windansea]

Cleo's hero:

the Good Greenwald of July, 2006:

...the point was not to impose an obligation for bloggers to condemn every vile comment that comes along. To the contrary, I was objecting to complaints made by numerous right-wing bloggers this weekend that "the Left" did not condemn Frisch’s reprehensible though irrelevant remarks with sufficient vigor and frequency and that this somehow means that they must approve of the tactics.

The point you attribute to me and then rebut at length — that everyone has an obligation to condemn vile comments or else be charged with approving of them — is not a point I made or believe. If anything, that was a point I was refuting.

Greenwald of March, 2007:

The more delicate ones will claim to repudiate her comments in the most limited terms, but their actions speak far louder than their cursory and reluctant words. Anyone who went to this event -- and that includes Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Dick Cheney -- knew exactly what they would be getting... Anyone who makes themselves a part of that event is purposely associating themselves with those sentiments. That is what this Conference is for.

[roanoke]

Barry-

I am definitely with you on that one.

I think the foreperson gets a sense of power by controlling the message both in and out of the jury room.

He writes the bad notes, then it's possible he tells the others-

"See the judge thinks you are an idiot he doesn't understand YOUR question.

Meanwhile the rest of the jury has no idea that the lack of clarity is being caused or increased by how sloppily written they are.

When is the last time you left that sloppy of a note-to anyone- let alone representatives of the Court and a judge?

[theo]

Roanoke --

In my experience, the notes are read by (or to) all the jurors before they go out.

Also in my experience, judges tend to be very solicitous of juries and their collective feelings. Maybe he can find a gentle way to ask them to write better notes, but he probably believes that this is as good as they can do and he really wants them to think that they are doing a great public service by being on the jury. (At least that applies in the lower profile kind of trials I know about.)

Mark O --

In my practice when my opponent does something that does not make sense to me, I always ask myself "Do they know MORE than I do or LESS?" I rarely know the answer but its a good way to think about why they did what they did.

[roanoke]

Jane
Judge Walton's memorandum also goes into great detail about the Russert rulings.

In fact I think it looks like him getting that out early will only help the appeals process.

Looks like from his opinion on the Andrea Mitchell testimony-that he was hamstrung by the specific confines of his particular court.

I was thinking or hoping that might be the best avenue for appeal.

[roanoke]

theo

But does the rest of the jury actually get to LOOK at the notes?

They might know the wording-but not see the rough draft quality of them.

Have you ever seen notes from another jury that sloppy?

They look like the diagram for a bad football play....

[windansea]

in case anyone has forgotten, Cleo used to beg TM to debate the sockpuppet king

why bother? Greenwald refutes himself slendidly

[windansea]

splendidly :)

[Other Tom]

Come come, Cleo, we await your answer: Who was doing the lying during the 2 1/2 years before Bush took office? It's a simple question, requiring only that you provide us with the names, so we can check to see what lies each named person was telling. Your continued failure to respond makes you look very cowardly indeed.

[theo]

Roanoke --

I think they COULD look at them if they wanted to. I assume for purposes of saving time that the draft note is read aloud.

But I really do not know. There is no "standard practice." Imagine if you were in a small conference room with 10 other people and you collectively wanted to send a note out for additional information. How would you go about it?

[roanoke]

theo-

Unfortunately I would never dream that the foreperson was writing the notes that poorly.

[bubarooni]

why shouldn't they have fired them? do they serve at the executive's pleasure?

my boss fires people for poor performance. it's really scary out here in the private sector.

[centralcal]

I should give up trying to read tea leaves, because I am usually wrong. I think that note was written with a lot of eye rolling and condescension (sp). I give up trying to devine whether the majority is for acquittal or conviction. But, clearly the jury is hung. Just on one or two counts? on all count? We don't know. But they seem to have signaled that they are hung. Besides addressing the questions they raise in both notes, what are the odds of the Judge trying to feel out where they are in deliberations? Do judges ever do that, or is it a no no?

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Here's a link to Walton's preemptive attack.

[centralcal]

Oh - Jane and Clarice - I sent off an email to Roger Ailes. Hope that address works better than the first Bob Woodward address did. grin.

[ghostcat]

clarice, et al -

Looking 3-4 plays downfield, will Justice Thomas need to recuse himself if a gulty verdict is appealled to the SCOTUS? He and Ted Wells were dorm-mates at Holy Cross and remain close friends, despite their political differences. What say you?

[Jane]

Unfortunately I would never dream that the foreperson was writing the notes that poorly.

I'm not nearly as bothered by the note as everyone else. It just sounds to me like someone is trying to use legaleze when he doesn't speak legaleze.

I write stupid stuff like that all day long - when I'm trying to memorialize a piece of some thought I'm still trying to formulate. Hell I often do it here.

One has to wonder why he didn't go back an edit the question at some point, but maybe he couldn't figure out how and decided to let the Judge sort it out.

The messiness didn't bother me either. We spend so little time these days putting things in longhand, that it has gotten harder I think.

[Other Tom]

Ghostcat, I think the answer is no. For one thing, Wells might not even be involved on the appeal, but even if he were I don't think that comes close to requiring recusal. Look at all the Harvard and Yale law college and law school types who come before others in the courts all the time.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

That note sat around the jury room all day. Of course, they all looked at it. Some here seem to think of the foreman like a teacher in a classroom of 6 year olds. The foreman is the dumb schmuck that got stuck with the job of tallying the votes and filling out the paperwork. Big deal!

[ghostcat]

OT -

Thanks. That looks like a compelling argument for keeping Wells out of the appeals process.

[clarice]

No. Because there is only one set of SCOTUS judges and most of them have multiple associations with firms, government , businesses, they do not recuse themselves for such flimsy reasons.

[Elliott]

TM:

On yesterday's open thread, you raised four possibilities in analyzing Libby's conversation with Addington vis-a-vis his conversation with Grenier.

"Either Libby is worried that the CIA is lying or backpedaling, or he forgot that chat, or it never happened, or the Addington bit with a spousal reference never happened. But I have a hard time believing they all happened *and* Libby remembered them."

When the indictment was handed down and I'd convinced myself to move away from the edge of the precipice, I started to think that Libby's questions to Addington suggested that he wasn't sure that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and that he was simply seeking corroborative evidence. This would be consistent with any of the first three possibilities you suggest.

However, while Libby not believing what Grenier said, forgetting what Grenier said, or never speaking about Valerie Wilson with Grenier seems like a positive, it puts the defense lawyers in a difficult position because they would have to argue that Libby did not remember any of the June mentions of Val when he spoke with Ari Fleischer on July 7, somehow addressed a question that related to her to Addington the following day, and then promptly forgot about Valerie Wilson and her employment so quickly that he was surprised when they were mentioned to him later that week. Let's just say I think Horace Rumpole would have been hard pressed.

As to possibility four, there was a stipulation regarding Addington, which MJW was relying on yesterday in offering a theory of the case. According to Jeralyn's summary, it was stipulated that the FBI agent who interviewed Addington would testify that his summary of that interview "describes the conversation between Libby and Addington in the anteroom of the Vice President's office. The report does not reflect that Libby made any reference to a spouse or a wife. He only asked about the CIA sending someone other than an employee on a mission."

So, Wilson writes and op-ed that appears on July 6, the same day he goes on Meet the Press criticizing the administration. Two days later Libby wants more information about him. Much better, as long as the jury at least has reasonable doubt about Fleischer.