The Libby Juror

The WaPo brings us the Libby juror, who no doubt had more at the Huffington Blog.

I liked this:

On "Larry King Live" that night, I learned something else I hadn't known. During the trial, former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer testified that he tried to give John Dickerson, then of Time magazine, the Plame scoop but that Dickerson wasn't interested. In the green room before the show, Dickerson, who hadn't been called to testify, introduced himself. "Ari never told me that," he said. "What he said was, 'You ought to check out who sent Joe Wilson to Niger.' " That probably wouldn't have made any difference in the trial, but it was good to know.

There was a defense stipulation indicating that Dickerson disputed Ari's account, I thought - was I wrong about that?  On Feb 16 I thought the jury did not know about Dickerson, and on the 17th I thought they did, but I can't figure why I switched. (especially since there was no trial on Friday the 16th.)

The WaPo has evidence here, but no obvious Dickerson stipulation.  Troubling.

Well, I was right one of those two times!

Comments

[Ranger]

"That probably wouldn't have made any difference in the trial, but it was good to know."

So evidence that one of the key prosecution witnesses was mistaken about which reporter he leaked to wouldn't have made a difference in the trial? Yep, sounds like Libby got an impartial jury.

[clarice feldman]

Worse--Fleischer was the key witness for Fitz' theory that Libby told someone about Plame and her role in the Mission before reporters started calling him. In other words, but for Fleischer's testimony that he had lunch w/ Libby/Libby told him the "hush hush" stuff and he then told Dickerson and Gregory..there is not a shred of evidence that Libby remembered the June 12 tidbit before he talked to Cooper.

[Other Tom]

Off-topic but of great interest: this is an excerpt from a current piece by Christopher Hitchens on the new Iraq hydrocarbon law. It is recommended reading for such despairing defeatists as the troll BTW, who appears to be actively opposed to the possibility of democracy in Iraq.

"Can you easily imagine the Saudi government allocating oil revenues so as to give a fair share to the ground-down and despised Shiite workers who toil, for the most part, in the oil fields of the western region of the country? Or picture the Shiite dictatorship in Iran giving a fair shake to the Arab-speaking area of Khuzestan, let alone to the 10 percent of Iranians who are both Sunni and Kurdish? To ask these questions is to answer them. Control over the production and distribution of oil is the decisive factor in defining who rules whom in the Middle East."

[danking70]

We've commented and wondered why the defense didn't do more to highlight the problems with Ari's testimony by calling Dickerson and Gregory.

We speculated that Pincus' testimony contradicting Ari may have been enough for the defense.

However, I imagine that the jury would think that the defense was just badgering Ari like Judy Miller and her "good" notes.

[azaghal]

I'm pasting this in from an email I wrote--I hope that's not bad form:

BTW, did you see these truly appalling statements (pontifications?) by that appalling twit Collins?

I knew that if I looked beyond Libby's actions, I could link this case to troops dying in Iraq and to Plame's career.

...

One juror opened things up by declaring, "I think they're lying. Every one of them." A few others were frustrated that we had only Libby to consider. We knew from testimony that Armitage and Karl Rove were the first ones to divulge Plame's name and occupation to reporters. One juror asked, "Where are Rove and Armitage? Weren't they the ones who leaked it first?" That remark was answered with "Amen." Another juror said that Libby took the hit for Cheney, his former boss.

It seems clear to me that the jurors were under the impression that divulging Plame's name and occupation to reporters was somehow a crime. How did they ever get that impression? In a fair trial, wouldn't they have been clearly instructed as to whether or not that was a crime--so they could truly put it out of their minds?

[PMII]

So there was confusion before the trial, there was confusion during the trial, and now there is confusion after the trial.

Bet there will be confusion about this in the history books forever.

[azaghal]

Bet there will be confusion about this in the history books forever.

Posted by: PMII | March 12, 2007 at 10:41 AM

As Michael Barone notes in his very fine article, that's the way the Dems want it.

[bio mom]

Libby did not get a fair trial. No way. It is a disgrace to the country.

[clarice feldman]

azaghal--that is the Fitz genius for smoke and mirrors, isn't it? Gin up in the press and courts the notion that she may well have come w/in the IIPA, claim its irrelevant at the trial, and then hit that base chord hard on rebuttal.

He's a disinfo specialist.

[Tom Maguire]

In other words, but for Fleischer's testimony that he had lunch w/ Libby/Libby told him the "hush hush" stuff and he then told Dickerson and Gregory..there is not a shred of evidence that Libby remembered the June 12 tidbit before he talked to Cooper.

Well, Judy Miller certainly rose to the level of "shreds", but not much higher.

And David Addington had his chat with Libby in which the spouse may or may not have been mentioned sometime the week of July 7-11; Libby thought it was before the Judy Miller July 8 meeting, but it may have been post-meeting a**-covering by Scooter.

[Alcibiades]

The smoke and mirrors analogy is particularly apt for the way Fitz showcased Russert, IMO. Because remove the mirrors, deflecting the eyes from the truth, and the man you see in the suit is distinctly different than the one he has been portraying on screen all this time.

[sylvia]

Why would Libby tell Flesicher it's hush/hush if he had no knowledge Plame was covert? Was there any proof that Libby was informed of her covertness? I thought not as that was one reason he wasn't prosecuted on that?

[clarice feldman]

Well--yes the Addington conversation--but Addington was a logical place to go to get an answer to the obvious questions raised in Wilson's July 6 op ed..wasn't he? The first time I looked at it, I wondered "why Wilson?" and "why no non-disclosure agreement". But you have a good point..Still, months later, trying to reconstruct who said what over a three or four days' period is nigh impossible. My schedule is far less hectic than Libby's and I couldn't do it.

[sylvia]

And speaking of jury knowledge, what I want to know is why did the jurors find Russert somewhat believable when they heard about how he flat out lied about media accounts in the past. They defintiely heard that part right - because I thought I read somewhere that the jury didn't hear the whole story on that.

[maryrose]

sylvia:
It is pure conjecture as to whether Libby said hush-hush. remember 2 people are in dis pute with Ari's immunity proof statements-Pincus and Dickerson. His testimony is not to be relied on here. Russert gave two different versions of his memory. One to the FBI and one to Fitz and at the trial. Mitchell made an offhand comment and then retracted it by claiming she must have been drunk. We have yet to hear from Gregory who is probably bound and gagged somewhere. This was a hatchet job prosecution where false pretenses were allowed to stand for years and then only after an uproar were they corrected by the erstwhile prosecutor. A bad business all around.

[sylvia]

Yes Maryrose, I agree if Mitchell, Pincus, and Dickerson, and a memory expert are allowed in at the appeal, Libby has a much better chance. And they need to stress Russert's lie about the Buffalo News and pin him down more on his convo with Libby and Wilson/Plame. And also talk about how the jury cannot assume he was not absent-minded without proof at that time. You know they should just hire me, I've got it all planned out. Too bad I'm not a lawyer...

[Pofarmer]

Why would Libby tell Flesicher it's hush/hush if he had no knowledge Plame was covert? Was there any proof that Libby was informed of her covertness? I thought not as that was one reason he wasn't prosecuted on that?
It's extremely useful for Fleischer to have another source besides the INR. With the INR, he's clearly leaking classified info. I think the hush hush, on the qt, is a fabrication.

[hit and run]

maryrose:
Gregory who is probably bound and gagged somewhere

Is he related to the former Israeli ambassador to El Salvador?

[maryrose]

H&r:
Best comment of the day-LOL!

[Jane]

Yes Maryrose, I agree if Mitchell, Pincus, and Dickerson, and a memory expert are allowed in at the appeal, Libby has a much better chance.

There are no witnesses at an appeal.

There are briefs. The facts were established for all purposes at trial.

[sylvia]

"There are no witnesses at an appeal."

Well that sucks. If all the facts were established, what do you appeal then?

[hit and run]

Jane:
There are briefs

I don't even have the energy to make a boxers joke outta that.......why do you guys keep me up sooooo late?

[Jane]

If all the facts were established, what do you appeal then?

The only thing addressed on appeal are rulings of law.

[Jane]

H&R - just be happy we didn't find you like that guy in El Savador!

[hit and run]

Jane, see my first comment on that thread...I specifically denied that that has never happened to me! Some might say over specifically, though...

[EH]

Yep, sounds like Libby got an impartial jury.

"Impartial jury" means that the jury is comprised of a satisfactory cross-section of society. That the jury was seated at all means that both the defense and prosecution agree that it's an impartial jury. It does not mean that the jury agrees with you.

[Pofarmer]

That the jury was seated at all means that both the defense and prosecution agree that it's an impartial jury.

Actually no, it doesn't. It seems the jury pool tilted so far left, there the best that could be hoped for was to just get it majority Democrat.

9 Dems, 3 independents, in a political trial, fair and balanced?

[Another Bob]

If all the facts were established, what do you appeal then?

The only thing addressed on appeal are rulings of law.

Posted by: Jane | March 12, 2007 at 12:10 PM

I presume this is why Wells will first go for new trial?

[Syl]

It's extremely useful for Fleischer to have another source besides the INR. With the INR, he's clearly leaking classified info. I think the hush hush, on the qt, is a fabrication.

I saw no indication from juror statements that they even considered the INR as a source for Fleischer.

It's like it went right over their heads.

[Cromagnon]

Are you people still whining about Scootie boy being convicted by a jury of his peers on felony criminal offenses? Jeeez... pathetic. What ever happened to the 'rule of law' that was so important around 1998 or so?? Don't worry though, Boy George is gonna pardon Scootie anyway so you'll don't have to get your panties in a wad worrying that Scootie will have to play Bubba's bitch... Boy George IS the law after all, he 'does what he wants!' (in my best Cartman voice). Surely you'll know that by now, after watching the Boy King wipe his ass on the Constitution for the last 6 years just to keep you people from shitting your pants every time you hear the word 'Al Queda'

[Pofarmer]

It's like it went right over their heads.

Somehow, I don't see that as being a particularly high hurdle.

Fitz got them to concentrate on the "conspiracy to out", and that's what they went after.

[Pofarmer]

Cromagnon really were less intelligent.

[Tom Maguire]

Cromagnon really were less intelligent.

Yeah, those GEICO ads are put in a whole new light.

[Syl]

Cro

The people shredding the Constitution are the Dems who refuse to accept their loss in 2000, and in 2004 when Bush's policies were validated by virtue of his re-election.

This IS a democracy, you know. He who wins the election is the commander in chief and chief executive officer and determines this nation's policies and carries them out.

I'd suggest actually, you know, readin the Constitution.

[Steve]

Is the appeals court limited to upholding or overturning the conviction? If they can order a NEW trial can NEW facts be introduced into evidence? Like, you know, an actual expert on memory?

[clarice]

If the Court believes there were erroneous evidentiary rulings which may have effected the results it can remand the case for a new trial.
If it decides the appointment was illegal or violated the Constitution, the case is over and the conviction overturned.

[Pofarmer]

Was there any sort of ruling on the constitutionality of the appointment before?

[clarice]

The defense moved to dismiss on the ground the appointment was extra-statutory and unconsitutional and the trial judge denied that motion. It was beautifully argued and I though persuasive. I summarized the arguments and the ruling but the original pleadings and ruling are in TM's attic somewhere.

[Pofarmer]

So Walton made that judgement?

[Sara (The Squiggler)]

Clarice: when do you think we will start seeing the motions, briefs, or whatever on the quest for appeal? Will we see the filings for a new trial at the time of sentencing? before? after? AS I understand it, the appeal and the request for new trial are two separate entities, is this correct? Or is one dependent on the other?

[clarice]

First thee will be a motion for a new trial. Then an appeal if, as likely, that failes..

[Steve]

thank you, clarice, for answering my 3:08 question. Even if you weren't writing to me specifically.

[clarice]

I was responding to you Steve. And you are welcome.

[Sara (The Squiggler)]

I was thinking about what Clarice and some of the other lawyers have told us about how juror statements can't or wouldn't be used in post trial filings and I wonder if there isn't wiggle room on this because the juror in question is writing op eds in the WaPo and long descriptions of how clueless the jury really was about the evidence? This isn't exactly the same as a juror going home and telling a neighbor over the back fence. Personally, I think this stinks. This juror is not your run-of-the-mill juror dragged off the street. He has a personal relationship with more than one witness, he obviously has a working knowledge of the operations of the CIA through his Spy research/book, and he, according to his own braggadocio, carried weight in the jury room above and beyond the normal juror influence. In addition, his statements reveal how Walton's negative rulings for the defense had a major impact on jury deliberations, i.e., no memory expert, etc.

[Sara (The Squiggler)]

More on the Libby debacle

Dan has been quite adamant that we should not allow the upcoming Waxman-Plame show hearing to turn into yet a further reification of the bogus victim narrative Plame, the Reid Democrats, and professional liar Joseph Wilson have been peddling for the last several years—a narrative they have been trying to bolster by finessing the outcome of the Libby trial not as an example of an appalling procedural conviction but as a symbolic conviction that speaks to a larger underlying conspiracy, one that they “prove” by noting that Libby was convicted of not just of perjury but of obstructing justice.

Of course, that there was no underlying crime—else, why no prosecution of Richard Armitage?—seems not to stop those intent on pinning something on Dick Cheney and the Bush administration that carries with it the patina of criminality. Which is why they’ve allowed themselves to imagine deeper, darker conspiracies while conspicuously ignoring the failings of their star “witnesses,” Plame and Wilson—which in turn has allowed them to conclude that this conviction in fact means more than it does, as witnessed by Harry Reid’s appalling “summary” of the Libby conviction as reflective of a culture of corruption within the White House.

Worth reading it all.

[cboldt]

-- when do you think we will start seeing the motions, briefs, or whatever --

See comment-free data dump