Powered by TypePad

« Open Thread Sunday | Main | Monday Post-Game Show »

March 05, 2007

Comments

longtimelistener

Now, that would be great--Remember, if you're old enough, the ridiculous movies we all saw about marajuana--One puff and you ended up a drooling, homeless bum or a serial murderer?

"Carbon Madness"?

Even Fitz would agree

Rick Ballard

"Has anyone heard Hillary talking like a black southerner?"

She's been maried to one for years, according to press accounts, why wouldn't she pick up his speech patterns? Remember - she's the first black co-president. At least she's not descended from slave owners like that Hussein Obama fellow. Did you know his father was a drunk and a bigot?

WA Moore

It really sounds like deadlock.

Sara (Squiggler)

Thank you bolding that Clarice since it is near impossible to tell from this thread what happened with the earlier notes.

steve

Is this jury intent on deliberating or on dialoguing with the judge? Sheesh. Any more smoke signals out of them and I'll expect not just a verdict but a new Pope.

clarice

Jack Ford:Ct TV:"Nine days and counting for the jury deliberations in the Lewis "Scooter" Libby trial...the jury is obviously wrestling with whether Libby lied to FBI agents and the grand jury or if he just had problems with remembering his conversations...but I can't help wondering--and this is coming from a former prosecutor--if it was really necessary to utilize the time and resources of the justice system to try this case...look, I don't know if Libby lied or not...and if he did lie, it is certainly wrong and a crime...but sometimes prosecutors have to exercise some judgement about whether there's a real need to bring charges and take a case to trial...this case doesn't deal directly with disclosing Valerie Plame's name and CIA role--we know who did that and it wasn't Libby...and no prosecutor has alleged that Libby's statements were any type of cover-up...so why--in a time of such strain on justice resources--expend the time and energy arguing over whose version of a telephone conversation is the "truth"?...it seems to be a question worth asking"

Jane

My goodness this has been a rollarcoaster ride, hasn't it?

sylvia

As to Tom's and Cecil's theory that it didn't make sense for Libby to lie, hence he is more likely to be telling the truth. I think you are forgeting that history is filled with smart people doing dumb things. That's why the coverup scandal is the most common type of scandal among the powerful. Libby's temporary amnesia defense seems stupid now, but at the time he didn't know for sure if what he did was leaking, contrary to his statements. Perhaps there is more somewhat incriminating tidbits to his conversations that we are even aware of, or perhaps Libby mistakenly thought so at the time. If you read the transcipt for Count 5 Perjury, Libby is definitely oversharing there, and to me that sounds like he is going overboard in trying to convince Fitz that he did nothing wrong- he is going overboard to bring up "well all I did was convey information I got from reporters to other reporters" which sounded to me that he had already thought out his defense and was actually spelling it out to Fitz.

The problem is, in taking this risk, he pinned himself down. He is claiming right there that the only thing he knew was from reporters, and even names a first source, Russert, when all Fitz has to do is then show any government sources. If Libby had just said, "I don't remember where I heard it from first", that would leave the door open. Even if Fitz had found official sources, it would have been harder for Fitz to prove Libby was lying as Libby left the door open for official sources. However Libby didn't want to take that chance because he was still afraid of a leaking charge, so he closed that door. Instead, he opened up the door for a perjury charge.

MikeS

If Andrea Mitchel read the Novak story off the pre-pub wire, would the statement in her proffer still be true?

Sue

So disgusting, and her audience should have been completely turned-off to such nonsense.

I was horrified.

theo

Clarice --

Jack Ford nails it!

Barry

"Barry, the only thing worse than ignorance is reiterated ignorance."

Sorry Charlie, been in the measurement field for years. What are you measuring with the temperature sensors? The temperature in that place. Does 100 or 1000 or 10000 sensors give you a true "average" of earths temperature? No, it gives you the average of the places you measured. Are some of those sensors located in cities? Yes. Do city temperatures rise proportionate to population? Yes. Are there problems with stating the earths temperature related to short term time periods when the change itself is smaller than the measurement noise? Yes. Do you understand the significance of the signal to noise ratio?

As I have said, you cannot know what the current temperature trend is. We will know the answer, a relative answer, in a few hundred years. We know the trend of the last several hundred years has been warming. Perhaps it has peaked, perhaps not. In any event, man is not the cause of climate change. Climate change, including extremes, have occured far longer than man.

I could go on.
We are not going to agree. Since I don't wish to insult your intelligence, I won't.

sylvia

In case you all get riled up, again, I still don't think Libby should be found guilty, but I still don't believe he just "forgot".

Syl

steeve

Sheesh. Any more smoke signals out of them and I'll expect not just a verdict but a new Pope.

LOL!

Jane

Theo,

I hope it's routine, not serious.

centralcal

Looks like emptywheel and Pach disagree about Jeffress looking happy and Fitz frazzled regarding this new note.

theo

Jane --

It is so minor I should not have mentioned it. I was just kicking myself for not being there. I think it would be a blast. I would even live blog if someone could teach me how.

steve

Sylvia: Libby ADMITTED that he first heard about Wilson's wife from Cheney. Can't get more official than that.

The issue is 1) whether he REMEMBERED about where he heard it as he talked to reporters and 2) whether he remembered whether he remembered it in his GJ testimony months later. I still don't see how his alleged "lie" would have gotten him out of trouble on a violation of his NDA, since that agreement requires him to affirmatively make sure that anything he gives out is OK. Hence, the "lie" is motiveless and not material--it doesn't protect him against any crime Fitz might have been investigating.

bio mom

New argument (discussion?) at FDL about whether or not Jeffress actually looked happy or not.

Jane

That's good news. We are at that age I guess.

JT

Happy to report I am now officially blocked from posting at FDL --- I guess they aren't "mentally healthy" enough "to engage with and see others as subjects in their own right" and be willing to allow others to express opinions, "maybe they are not "able to perceive the individual agency of others they don't even know personally" and therefore have not begun "to achieve a higher level of personal emotional and social development"

Otherwise, if they were confident in their higher level of personal emotional and social development" maybe they could tolerate what other open minded individuals have to say even if it is dissent.


sylvia

Global warming from CO2 is a scam. Really. There is no proof whatsoever that CO2 causes temperature change. There is a graph showing correlation between CO2 and temperature, but no causation proof. What scientists are only now trying to figure out is how solar variations effect the climate. I think they will find that greater solar rays cause heat to rise, greater heat causes greater CO2 as it is released from more plant life and from the earth and oceans. But really, they still don't know yet, even though many like Gore pretend that the debate is "solved".

Jane

New argument (discussion?) at FDL about whether or not Jeffress actually looked happy or not.

Next thing we know they will hire Bill O"reilly's body language expert. Sheesh. Well they best pick up the pace, I have a meeting in 40 minutes.

Syl

sylvia

I still don't think Libby should be found guilty, but I still don't believe he just "forgot".

Yeah but forgot WHAT? It seems Libby not only forgot, he forgot what it was exactly that he forgot.

sylvia

Steve, the lie is better than nothing. To show leaking, you have to prove offical knowledge and intent to a jury. Even though you have Libby saying, oh yes, I know it's no excuse to leak without checking, in reality he knows that that is not always true. It CAN be a defense to a jury. Just because Libby says it's not, doesn't mean it's not- and he knows that. He was trying what he could.

bio mom

Lawyers back. All discussing together. All looking serious says FDL.

Could the CIA use this sort of thing as an interrogation technique?? This waiting is torture!

arcanorum

"greater heat causes greater CO2 as it is released from more plant life and from the earth and oceans"

green plants release O2 and absorb CO2.

steve

For the sake of tying together two of the three topics on this thread:

One of my teachers said "If you torture the data enough, eventually it will confess." Applies to Fitz and global climate modelers. You're all on your own with the insurance stuff.

larry

Jane, before you go, I apologize for any misunderstanding between us. I still think you're hot. Everyone else, sorry i couldn't shut up about the insurance thangy.

Syl

Looks like emptywheel and Pach disagree about Jeffress looking happy and Fitz frazzled regarding this new note.

Pach was the one who insisted the jurors didn't look at Libby when they came in the other day...but Isikoff had a completely different take.

I think Pach is Shuster's twin.

WA Moore

Charlie, Thanks for the response on the accuracy of the average (mean) of measurements. My issue is the certainty of sampling error in the process, mostly from the location of thermometers, but also from incorrectly calibrated (or non-calibrated) instruments. There is also the error introduced by measurement frequency. Bottom line: Despite your seeming absolute certainty of your position, there is no reliable (real) science to support it.

theo

Seriously folks, how come FDL has TWO people in the courtroom and we have none?

sylvia

First of all, we really don't know the specifics of the conversation with Novak and Miller. It's possible they are covering a little for him, as they seem kind of close, but Libby wasn't sure at the time that they would. That might have given him more motivation to fudge.

As to what he "forgot", it must have been something that he feared might be classified. It must have been that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, and Libby feared that she might have been undercover. Even if he wasn't sure she was undercover, he might have been afraid that she was or suspected she was, and that somehow Fitz would try to pin any conversation about her position or work as leaking.

Patrick

Syl,
I think Pach IS Schuster.

steve

Sylvia: It isn't just Libby who says that accidental passing along of classified info isn't OK under his NDA--that is, by all accounts I have read, the actual legal state of affairs. And since Libby knew he hadn't leaked Plame to Novak, an NDA violation was his only source of jeopardy (quite apart from the ways in which Plame is not covered by the IIPA, etc.) Hence his statements, even if false, could not have been intended to cover his own as--I mean, his own legal liability.

Enlightened

OT - Clarice - not sure if you are still interested in the Litvinenko assassination - looks like our theory of Kremlin involvement is even more likely - someone got a little too close -again:

http://www.sweetness-light.com/

"The shooting of Paul Joyal, 53, came days after he accused the Russian government of involvement in the poisoning of former KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko. The FBI was assisting in the investigation."

Jane

larry,

Don't sweat it, please. Some day we will have a chance to continue it I hope.

Charlie (Colorado)

Sorry Charlie, been in the measurement field for years. What are you measuring with the temperature sensors? The temperature in that place. Does 100 or 1000 or 10000 sensors give you a true "average" of earths temperature? No, it gives you the average of the places you measured. Are some of those sensors located in cities? Yes. Do city temperatures rise proportionate to population? Yes. Are there problems with stating the earths temperature related to short term time periods when the change itself is smaller than the measurement noise? Yes. Do you understand the significance of the signal to noise ratio?

Don't try to teach grandma how to suck eggs, Barry. All of those issues are considered at great length in climate science, and like more or less everything else of this sort, they are considered statistically, and include error estimates. If you would go read Roger Pielke's Climate Science site, you could find a large number of papers on the relative effects of water vapor, CH4, heat islands, etc, on the measurements and the errors. Climate Audit has just had some interesting stuff on errors caused by moving a measurement station that you might want to look at.

Even so, no one, not even the most aggressive AGW "deniers" --- of whom I'm one, by the way --- suggest that asking "what is the average temperature" is ill-defined or incapable of answer. If that's what you're saying, well, I'd like to see you make a case for it.

A number of different researchers, using a number of different methods, using different proxies, come up with very similar overall temperature models.

The numbers that these people get with these models are consistent as well with gross historical observations, like the "little ice age" and the "medieval warm period." This is also consistent with things like the fact that the Thames doesn't freeze over much anymore, unlike it did 300 years ago.

Where the trouble comes in is in the error bars, which can be relatively large; but then if you think I've been saying that there is no question that the majority of global warming in the last 100 years is due to CO2 forcing, then you need to work on reading comprehension.

Sue

It isn't looking good.

sylvia

green plants release O2 and absorb CO2.

Hmmm true. Decaying plants may release C02. So greater heat increases the oxygen?

Not That Patrick

Seriously folks, how come FDL has TWO people in the courtroom and we have none?

FDL is much more like MSM than JOM is.

clarice

Another day, another climate (and UN) scam
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1457

Theo--mba is looking for more people to sit there and report. Do YOU want to do it?

theo

Sue --

What do you mean?

sylvia

"It isn't just Libby who says that accidental passing along of classified info isn't OK under his NDA"

Well I think I read the law and it said something about "knowingly". Anybody have that law again? Oh well, gotta go anyway. Maybe I'll look it up later.

Jane

4:33

Okay, now both sides are wandering back to their tables. REading. Everyone looks mystified about what to make of this.

Walton in.

Walton: What's counsel's take on the notes.

Fitz: I think we're close to an agreement on the first note.

Walton: Difference between one and two?

Fitz: I think we're close to deciding something.

Walton: I don't want to keep thejury waiting until tomorrow. The only other issue. I'll let you all work on that to see if you can come up with something. But I do have an issue as I was trying to come up with some language, and I know that counsel had not requested unanimity instruction regarding this count. I think it may be a problem. I had "and' between the two dates. Govt requested that it be changed to "or". Jury doesn't have to find that he falsely made the statement on both dates. But is there a unanimity issue WRT this count, in light of statements made on two different dates. I don't think the defense suggested he said soemthing different on one day and the other. We've got to know taht the jury is saying he made a false statement on one and the same date that's alleged in the indictment. I don't know if there's a unaninimity issue or not. THe issue can't be waived. We have to know that jury reaching unanimous verdict on one of the two dates or both.

Wells: I'd ask you give us time to reflect on it [really quiet]. We need to discuss among ourselves and with the client. It's just too important.

Walton: there's going tobe a claim of plain error if we don't know that there's a false statement made on a particular date.

Wells: I'm happy to discuss it once I have time.

Fitz: If we could jump ahead to the third item. Are we allowed to consider all testimony. Count Three. If a juror believs that he told a consistent lie on all counts.

Wells: I'd take a very different position, the answer is a definite no.

Fitz we don't think there's any evidence that's limited ot a count.

Walton: It depends on how they can consider. Obviously they can't consider what he said befor ethe GJ and assume that he said it to the agents. They need to make an independent determination. I do think the govt is right that the jury could buy in on proposition that he committed himself to statement when he spoke to the FBI, and hterefore could not back away from teh statement. And therefore he testified consistent with what he said. THey can consider it from that perspective. I don't that that means he said it to the FBI. I don't know how you convey it to the jury.

Wells; it's very diffficult, it has the potential danger.

Walton: Do you disagree with it?

Wells, I think the answer is no.

Patrick R. Sullivan

According to Mark Steyn, Fitz's next case--scheduled to start March 14th--is pretty unusual too:

------------quote----------
...Richard C. Breeden, the court-appointed "corporate monitor" at the collapsed WorldCom and an "adviser" to the special committee of Hollinger International, is on course to become the first corporate governance billionaire. This guy has a 52-foot custom-built racing sloop with running costs of 30 grand a month in a class restricted to the likes of King Harald of Norway and King Juan Carlos of Spain. And he earned it through "corporate governance." Who knew there was so much money in complaining about the excessive salaries of American executives? As Olga and Adrian Stein note dryly in Books In Canada, it is "a remarkable achievement to have turned the knotty subject of ethics ... into a financial fortune."

....I hasten to add I have nothing against Richard Breeden. And I certainly have no desire to attract his attention in any way whatsoever. But it is striking that all the phrases that set off alarm bells in relation to Conrad Black -- "excessive compensation," "Cayman Islands," "lavish personal tastes" -- apply to Mr. Breeden equally and then some. And Mr. Breeden doesn't create any goods, doesn't publish any daily newspapers, doesn't produce anything except internal memos. It's four years since Hollinger put him on the payroll at 800 bucks an hour.

.... in fees to Mr. Breeden and other expenses, the cost of investigating Conrad Black's management of Hollinger International was up over $136 million -- by the middle of last year. By now it's topped the $200 million the Black team is alleged to have "ransacked" from the company....Think of Conrad Black as a psycho teen holding his Grade 10 class hostage in the school gym. Richard Breeden, Patrick Fitzgerald, Judge Strine of Delaware and the rest of the SWAT team storm in, gun down Conrad, plus his hostages, plus grades one through nine, and then pronounce the operation a great success.

....But beyond the losses to investors in two countries and readers on three continents are more basic questions. What has been done to Hollinger International is astonishing, and has very worrying implications for anyone with a public company in the United States: Hollinger International was not an Enron or WorldCom -- a failing business of worthless properties fleecing its employees' retirement plans. The most that can be said against it was that it had a sluggish stock price. Yet, on that basis, courts and regulators have removed a company from its lawful controlling shareholders and delivered it into the hands of a small group of usurpers with no equity in the business, who sidelined the owners and proceeded to gut the enterprise, sell off the assets and even change the corporate name, all the while compensating themselves on as lavish a scale as the allegedly profligate regime the courts and regulators used to justify the usurpation. If this is "corporate governance," let's cut to the chase and adopt relatively straightforward Afro-Marxist confiscation.
------------endquote----------

MJW

Theo, from footnote 11:

The Court afforded the defense an opportunity to query Mitchell about the intensity of her investigation outside of the jury’s presence, but it cautioned the defense that the scope of its questioning would be limited to this point.
I can't see how this limitation can apply to anything other than the attempted impeachment evidence.

This is the FDL version (which admittedly isn't particularly illuminating -- perhaps becuase it was written by a non-layer who found the legal arguments "tedious."):

Wells I don't to reargue my point. But I'd like to call her to talk about how aggressively she was working on the story. Once I show the intensity with which she was covering the story, I would have the right to question her whether she heard a rumor, and then I'd have the right to impeach her.

Wells: I'm willing to sit on the record as is. I do believe I would have the right to impeach her. I'm not calling her as a subterfuge. I will accept that the record is closed. I will release her. My appellate record is protected.

Walton: The intensity of what she was doing in and of itself doesn't add to your defense.

Wells: If you accept that the intensity of her work is relevant, then I submit that the statement is admissible.

Walton: The intensity doesn't mean anything UNLESS you're arguing she may have heard it. The mere fact that intensity of investigation doesn't help your case. You've got to couple the two for it to have any value in your case. You may perceive it as having probative value. It has nil value.

Wells: That's why I'm willing to rest on the record with that understanding.

This is from the February 12 AP report by Matt Appuzo:
U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton said Mitchell can be called as a witness but he wouldn’t allow Libby’s attorneys to ask about her inconsistent statements.
Possibly the article isn't referring to the testimony outside the presence of the jury, but since Walton hadn't yet decided whether Mitchell would testify before the jury, it likely does (particularly as it parallels Waltons footnote on limitations).

theo

Hard to follow what is going on from the FCL "transcript" but I do not have a good feeling about it.

clarice

Well, I have no idea what this talk is all about. Does anyone?

Charlie (Colorado)

Global warming from CO2 is a scam.

Tell that to Venus.

Really.

Nope, sorry.

There is no proof whatsoever that CO2 causes temperature change.

Incorrect. What's questionable is what the net effect of CO2.

There is a graph showing correlation between CO2 and temperature, but no causation proof.

No, the causal mechanism is well-understood: CO2 is transparent in visible wavelengths, but opaque in infrared. Thus increasing CO2 tends to trap heat. What's unclear is whether, for example, increasing cloudiness reflects enough heat that the net effect is reduced or eliminated.

What scientists are only now trying to figure out is how solar variations effect the climate.

But that doesn't mean there is no effect of CO2; it's a problem with multiple variables.

I think they will find that greater solar rays cause heat to rise,...

Sort of tautological, but yeah.

greater heat causes greater CO2 as it is released from more plant life and from the earth and oceans.

Werll, no, plants absorb CO2, not release it. But you're right that warming the oceans releases some CO2, since it's less soluable in warmer water.

But really, they still don't know yet, even though many like Gore pretend that the debate is "solved".

They don't know what contributes the most, right.

Sue

but I do not have a good feeling about it.

Me either. Looks like the holdout folded.

bio mom

Seems to be some question about inconsistencies in statements made to the GJ and before that to the FBI. Perhaps wondering if the GJ different statement can be used to decide false statements were made to the FBI earlier?? I could be all wet here.

Another Bob

Sounds like they're trying to convict on something and are trying to decidie what they can make fly?

maryrose

Could we pleease stop talking about CO2 gasses and global warming! This is the Libby trial for godsakes!

theo

MJW --

I am not sure, but I have a different take. I do not see why he would not allow -- outside the presence of the jury -- questions about her Capitol Report statement. I think by "limitations" he meant no fishing expedition.

As I said, she would likely say (1) I did not know prior to the Libby/Russert conversation and (2) my Capitol Report remarks were in error. Walton then would have ruled that she could not be presented to the jury.

But I still do not see what they would have to LOSE by trying. Maybe she would have said something else.

theo

Bio Mom

Something like that. I guess the judge is saying that they cannot use the grand jury stuff as proof of what he told the FBI however it is not an impermissible inference that he might have felt stuck to repeat what he told the FBI to the grand jury. Since we KNOW what he told the GJ and have only notes of what he told the FBI, there is some possibility to fall between the cracks.

But the tone of this is a conviction being wrapped up, not a defense verdict.

But I could be wrong.

Jane

Typically how long is it before we get the question?

secarr

From reading the FDL notes, it looks like the jury had a question about using the GJ testimony to decide whether Libby lied to the FBI before he ever gave the GJ testimony. The Judge has reservations about allowing the jury to use the GJ testimony as the basis for determining whether Libby lied on an occasion prior to giving subject testimony.

steve

Given the problems with the FBI notes and agent Bond's performance on the stand, how in the world can the jury conclude anything beyond a reasonable doubt about the truth or falsity of what Libby told the FBI?

clarice

It is at moments like this I wish we had someone other than FDL feeding us the story.

centralcal

maryrose, I feel your pain and share in it!

Pofarmer

Global warming from CO2 is a scam. Really. There is no proof whatsoever that CO2 causes temperature change. There is a graph showing correlation between CO2 and temperature, but no causation proof. What scientists are only now trying to figure out is how solar variations effect the climate. I think they will find that greater solar rays cause heat to rise, greater heat causes greater CO2 as it is released from more plant life and from the earth and oceans. But really, they still don't know yet, even though many like Gore pretend that the debate is "solved".

Crap, I agreed with Sylvia on something. Now I must go back to work.

PeterUK

IPCC - cooking the books

theo

It is at moments like this I wish we had someone other than FDL feeding us the story.

Posted by: clarice


Yes, and it is why I wish I had gone to DC myself.

MayBee

It seems to me they are now arguing what the case is about, and what those particular charges are regarding.
Which seems like it should have been nailed down sometime before the 9th day of jury deliberations.
If Walton can't figure it out, he should throw the charge out.

clarice

More discussion--jury is excused and it will continue..It may be that someone has picked up that in his gj testimony he was testifying about his state of mind when he answered the FBI questions, but from what we are getting who knows?

Sara (Squiggler)


maryrose, I feel your pain and share in it!

Centracal and Maryrose -- Me too.

Bob

Yes Charlie but CO2 only makes up 2% of of the gases that trap heat. Water vapor - clouds are the biggest at 75% and methane is about 20%.

Patrick R. Sullivan

'...it looks like the jury had a question about using the GJ testimony to decide whether Libby lied to the FBI before he ever gave the GJ testimony.'

So much for not allowing the jury to speculate.

clarice

fdl
Fitz: reading through the question of whether the story was based on what he knew about the crime they were investigating. That's no different than if he tells a story that the law enforcement doesn't account. The defense used it in their summation.

Walton: What about that Mr Wells, you made a bit point about that. Libby represented taht he did not have the type of time he normally had to refresh his memory, I assume that was put before them to explain what he said to FBI. They have something, IE the GJ testimony which suggests that even though he didn't have the time to review that.

Wells: it was a different argument. Libby in GJ, in March 5. We're going to take a short break. THe Marshalls are waiting for me to release the jury. Then we'll have more arguments.

Another Bob

MayBee | March 05, 2007 at 02:08 PM

If Walton can't figure it out, he should throw the charge out.

Here here.

At some point, doesn't the judge have to take charge of this situation?

Can Walton, on his own hook, bring the jury in and re-charge them? Or drop charges?

Joe

As a person watching from Oklahoma, I feel uterly confused.

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Dryfus got a fairer trial judge than Libby!

As to the convoluted "question," Fitz is trying to say that Libby was dishonest in his grand jury testimony of March 5th. And, was so, because he lied in October.

This, according to Fitz, is Libby's "state of mind."

This judge stinks. And, if we're very, very lucky, he just took the latter of affirmative action, and planted them in the clouds.

NO COMPETENTCE FROM WALTON WHATSOEVER.

And, Fitz is on a vendenda against Libby.

Can he pull it off?

Well, it's DC. Where Chandra Levy was murdered by a drug dealer. But these types of statistics are not kept. Go to DC, though. And, you'll find out what's common.

And, one thing that isn't common, is common sense. Waltoon is a disgrace.

Sara (Squiggler)

At this stage of deliberations and the trial, if the jury and the judge don't know what is what, then the charges should be thrown out immediately and/or a mistrial declared. This is ridiculous. The jury, not be lawyers, is allowed to be confused, but this isn't the jury, it is the judge and the lawyers. Even Fitz can't come up with Fitzlaw to answer the questions without violating the defendant's rights, or so it would seem.

Jane

FDL seems to think this is all about question 3. And now I have to go to my meeting.

Sara (Squiggler)

be lawyers = being lawyers

arcanorum

from FDL
"First, the first two questions have to do with the timing of the statement. The jury seems to be ready to say Libby lied about SOMETHING on one of the two interview dates (we're not sure–but it seems to be the grand jury testimony). So they're trying to come up with the language as to whether they can declare him guilty on just one of the two interviews. Wells seems pretty troubled by this. And Walton is most interested in making sure that htey all agree about which interview Libby lied in.

Okay, the other quesiton has to do with whether the Jury can use the GJ testimony in support of count three–the weakest Cooper charge. The debate has to do with this. Fitz has argued (and Walton appears to buy it this far) that some of the evidence about HOW he remembers should be available for the False Statement charge–should it be allowed to corroborate the FBI story. Meanwhile, Wells rightly wants to prevent the jury from saying that, if Libby lied in March, then he lied in October and November. It seems like Walton wants to find some language to (surprise) split the baby–allow the general evidence about memory to be admitted, but not the assumption that Libby said the same thing twice."

does not bode well for acquital on all counts.

MJW

Theo, unfortunately without something closer to a transcript, it's difficult to know what limitations Walton placed on examining Mitchell. Nevertheless, still think that the fact that Walton specifically mentioned the limitations placed on the defense implies he was preventing them from doing something they desired to do, and that he knew they desired to do. Attempts to go on a fishing expedition would be addressed through objections at the time of her testimony.

maryrose

centralcal and sara:
Thank you for your support. I can't believe that Walton Wells and Fitz are re-arguing this case at the eleventh hour. Is this typical for a case like this? This is unbelievable. I feel for the Libby family. Because of Fitz's vendetta case they are forced to suffer through this travesty of justice. Libby is probably getting an ulcer if he doesn't already have one at this point.

Imust B Crazy

sounds to me like they're still stuck on count 3 and the meaning of "on October 14 or November 26..." and whether as Clarice pointed out Libby is describing his state of mind when he talked to Cooper or describing is knowledge of Val's CIA employment/status.

'Page 74 of the jury instructions, “Count 3 of the indictment alleges that Mr. Libby falsely told the FBI on October 14 or November 26, 2003, that during a conversation with M. Cooper of Time magazine on July 12, 2003, Mr. Libby told Mr. Cooper that reporters were telling the administration that Mr. Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA but that Mr. Libby did not know if this was true.” (i.e., is the charge that the statement was made or about the content of the statement itself'

Another Bob

The Bush's had dinner at the Rove home last night.

Anyone holding out hope that the political fallout of a Libby pardon might have been discussed a little?

Charlie (Colorado)

Yes Charlie but CO2 only makes up 2% of of the gases that trap heat. Water vapor - clouds are the biggest at 75% and methane is about 20%.

Dammit, if I'm going to write all that, could people please read it and argue with what *I* said? I didn't say that CO2 was the *major* contributor, just *a* contributor. I didn't say that anthropogenic warming was the major reason for global warming, just that additional anthropogenic CO2 would have *some* effect; I then mentioned Roger Pielke's estimate of at most 30 percent --- which, being less than 50 percent, is *not* the major contributor.

theo

MJW --

Well I am not certain either. I suppose he could have only allowed her to answer only one question -- Did you know Wilson's wife worked for the CIA before July 10 or 11 2003? -- and not allow any followup or impeachment or attempt to refresh her recollection with the Capitol Report statement. I cannot imagine WHY he would be that tight. She probably would have said, as she has publicly, that the CR statement was in error.

But I do not see that it matters. Even if not allowed to use the CR statement, what was the downside in putting her up and asking her about her pre Novak article knowledge of the subject?

Someone around here keeps suggesting that NBC lawyers coerced a false affidavit out of Mitchell and perhaps if she were on the stand she would say different. I doubt this, but putting her on would be one way to find out.

theo

Are we back to the confusion about whether he is charged with lying to the FBI or lying to Cooper?

OMG.....

RichatUF

I suppose its not looking good

WALTON:They need to make an independent determination. I do think the govt is right that the jury could buy in on proposition that he committed himself to statement when he spoke to the FBI, and hterefore could not back away from teh statement. And therefore he testified consistent with what he said. THey can consider it from that perspective. I don't that that means he said it to the FBI.

and theo...I had some comments above about the trial run on Mitchell...her proffer was inconsisent with her Oct statement and Walton had a very narrow scope...Oct statement untrustworth, not probative, no Mitchell, and no issue for appeal if the defense agreed to the trial run

RichatUF

goldwater

Simply kafkaesque

MarkO

Theo,
“Someone around here keeps suggesting that NBC lawyers coerced a false affidavit out of Mitchell and perhaps if she were on the stand she would say different. I doubt this, but putting her on would be one way to find out. “

The NBC lawyers did not coerce anything. That’s not how it’s done. And these lawyers are very careful and clever.

theo

RichatUF --

I gather you think there was some DOWNSIDE in examining Mitchell outside the presence of the jury. But I could not follow WHY you think so from what you wrote.

Please explain. I sure do not see any downside, other than a probable waste of time.

theo

MarkO

I agree. And to be sure *I* would never accuse those lawyers of coercing a false affidavit. But I think someone else here said something along those lines (but perhaps not exactly that).

lurker

Speaking Truth to Power

Anyone planning on attending this?

RichatUF

from steve

Given the problems with the FBI notes and agent Bond's performance on the stand, how in the world can the jury conclude anything beyond a reasonable doubt about the truth or falsity of what Libby told the FBI?

And they lost the FBI Russert notes, even after Russert said his 302 was 'inaccurate'
Ridiculous

Theo...
Someone around here keeps suggesting that NBC lawyers coerced a false affidavit out of Mitchell and perhaps if she were on the stand she would say different. I doubt this, but putting her on would be one way to find out.

That was Clarice, and you are being too cute by half. The Russert affidavit was at the least misleading. NBC and Russert represented to the court in the Russert subpoena re: the coversation with Libby would have a chilling affect on sources and it would be inappropriate to force Russert to testify to his contacts with Libby. On the stand Russert admitted that he spoke to the FBI freely about Libby (these are the missing notes) before the affidavit was filed.

Mitchell could not have been questioned by Wells about whether the FBI also spoke to her without a subpoena. Walton had tailored the questioning to her "investigation" of the Wilson story and shoe-horned it into her proffer. Her proffer was worthless and it would have been the answer to all of Wells questions, hence your discussion of 807. It was improper for the judge to limit the Mitchell questioning this way [IMO]

RichatUF

Sara (Squiggler)

Oh let's see, choices = go along with what NBC lawyers insist on or fall victim to Judy Miller's fate -- nah, no feelings of coercion there.

centralcal

Good lord! There was a trial. Didn't these jurors pay attention to any of it? It seems like they have their own trial going on in the jury room!

MJW

Theo, I basically agree that unless the limitations was that she could only be asked the one question, they might have been better to take a chance and put her on the stand. Presumably, they could ask her about her contacts with Wilson and Harlow, etc. Perhaps she would have said something useful.

To me, it seems that the downside is that the precedent Walton is relying on to exclude Mitchell's testimony because she was just being called to impeach her expected testimony involved someone being called to be impeached by an unsworn previous statement that was contrary to a later statement made under oath. In the original case, it was considerably clearer what the expected testimony would be than it is in Mitchell's case. Once Mitchell says under oath that she didn't know about Plame, the situation fits squarely under the original decision.

MayBee

BTW, I love Jack Ford.

centralcal- I feel the jurors have been redeemed for their confusion a bit. Who is not confused at this point?
Seriously, what kind of indictment is it if even the prosecutor is unable to define the basis of the charge-- after the trial!

steve

It cracks me up that McCarthy tries to repair to standards of "common sense" in the York NRO piece when the jury is faced with parsing ambiguous semanitc tangles such as

(Libby lied when he (said in GJ that he (told Cooper that reporters were saying Wilson's CIA wife sent him) and (Libby did not know if this were true))

vs.

(Libby lied when he (said in GJ that he (told Cooper that reporters were saying Wilson's CIA wife sent him and Libby did not know if this were true))

See, easy as pie! Just a little of the ol' common sense and we'll be out of here in two jerks of a lamb's tail.

RichatUF

from theo...

I gather you think there was some DOWNSIDE in examining Mitchell outside the presence of the jury.


I wrote...

Mitchell would have mouthed the words of the proffer in her attorney's lap, folding rumor, information, and knowledge into an origami gallows...Mitchell didn't just show up to the MTP set drunk on July 6th to do her interview. The judge said Mitchell's statement could be read in the defense's interpertation and she also had notes. These are probative and go to the heart of the matter, and they would be excluded if Mitchell was given her practice run.

RichatUF

clarice

I don't know about anyone else but I am getting cranky .Very cranky.

boris

ditto

Sara (Squiggler)

Is the press allowed to listen in on the whatever is being discussed with Walton since the jury has been sent home?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame