Powered by TypePad

« Global Warning Solved! (But Don't Hold Your Breath Waiting To See This Implemented) | Main | Jury Watch - Home For The Weekend »

March 02, 2007

Comments

hit and run

Sue, where did we leave off?

Nacogdoches and Tyler are all I gots ( and a little Lufkin, Crockett and Athens)

Oh well.

To 171 Years!!!!!

MayBee

By lowering the bar for reasonable doubt.

Sue, yes. My thoughts exactly. Or by making you think your reasonable doubt standard is ridiculously high, "beyond human ability" high.

MayBee

One of my high school homecoming dates went to SFA. Oh man, was he cute!

Charlie (Colorado)

Let me just state for the record that I am playing Tom

I'm playing snare.

Elliott

MTT,

That's what I figured when I saw the note on the grounds that they wouldn't be discussing the obstruction count unless they'd decided that he had lied to the Grand Jury.

But, if they'd already reached a decision on count five, I would have expected the note to say something along the lines of "Should we examine the entirety of his testimony or only the statements mentions in count five?"

Sue

H&R,

Oh man, where to begin? You have Longview. Kilgore. Henderson. Carthage. Jacksonville. Palestine. Gladewater. Dangerfield. And a gazillion other towns.

Oh well, indeed. Here's lookin' at you...kid.

Barney Frank

MTT,

One of their earlier notes sought clarity as to whether they should be considering whetherf Libby lied in his FBI statement and GJ testimony or when he actually talked to Cooper.

If they're confused over that then Libby's fate is in the hands of 11 sea monkies.

Charlie (Colorado)

More like a freudian slip - think "persecution".

Congratulations, Joe. You just figured out and explained a joke the rest of us got first try.

MTT

Elliot,

I think perhaps they were intentionally vague as as not to give a premature reading of their verdicts.

Sue

Or by making you think your reasonable doubt standard is ridiculously high, "beyond human ability" high.

I think that is what is happening. Ridicule where all else has failed. The person or persons holding out are being ridiculed by the others. But, who knows beyond those in the jury room? I am speculating as fast as I can type.

Elliott

Barney Frank,

That first note wasn't very encouraging was it? However, at least that one hinted that they might acquit on the Cooper counts even if they convicted on the Russert counts.

With this one, only nitpicking stands between me and agreeing with MTT that they'll convict on the Cooper counts.

Sue

I think perhaps they were intentionally vague as as not to give a premature reading of their verdicts.

The understatement of the year. They had to go to Fitz U in order to word that question in such an ambiguous manner.

Legal Lurker

H&R,

And how about Junction and London ...

hit and run

Yeah, never mind. I grew up in Dallas, went to SFA. Had a pastor go to a church in Athens. I was a youth director in Tyler. My dad played (plays!) golf in Crockett. My roommate was a radio DJ in Lufkin. I actually was a church intern in Naca-nowhere and got married there...etc. I Love East Texas.


hit and run

Oh and Daingerfield is where Mr Morris Womack taught us to spit on our lures before casting them into the lake.

He of BC Powder employ....I love that man....

Sue

Whatever. I never liked Daingerfield anyways. ::grin::

Lake of the Pines?

hit and run

Legal Lurker:

Never been to Junction or London. Was near Del Rio over Christmas at my brother in law's deer lease (still eatin' on that deer!)

But I would move to the hill country in a heartbeat

Elliott

MTT,

That's a good point. But, does that mean we have a juror who buys counts three and five yet now finds the issue of forgetfulness relevant on count one?

Do you have a theory on why they didn't ask which statements they need to consider with respect to sections one and two of count one? Are they more confident they know which statements are relevant to those charges? Is there something to Theo's supposition that the third charge is the only one they'll be considering? Something else?

Sue

Where is London? I know where New London is but not London.

Syl

I'd really like to get some note that even whispers quietly in the background that even just one of them is looking at it from the perspective of...

what if I forgot, then what would I say to cooper and how would I explain it to the gj?

I know we don't know, but it feels like the jury is reading the case ONLY as fitz laid it out and is taking the witnesses at face value.


Charlie (Colorado)

Kurt Russell as Joe

Goldie Hawn as Val

You know, that could work. Never be able to get a budget though, neither of them has opened big in years.

hit and run

Not sure about Lake of the Pines.

When we went to Daingerfield, I was a wee little boy.

When I went to SFA, I was a...er....bigger wee little boy.

I obviously go through Texarkana etc when I go to my parents from NC, but ..... it's been a while since I really looked at NE TX...

Next time I go through there though, I want some serious Shiner action.
Or LoneStar!!!! heh.

I love you Sue.

Sue

I know we don't know, but it feels like the jury is reading the case ONLY as fitz laid it out and is taking the witnesses at face value.

I think they are looking at it like the swamp is looking at it. 9 conversations and he forgot? Which is a hard bar to get over, I admit. And why Fitz begged them to take the entirety of his case not snippets of it. The snippets that the defense tore holes in. If you please.

Jim E.

Sue wrote: "I think that is what is happening. Ridicule where all else has failed. The person or persons holding out are being ridiculed by the others."

I agree. The answer to the reasonable doubt question is self-evident. As worded, it is a ridiculous question, and it tends to reflect poorly on whomever is asking it.

But consider this: it would make little sense to send a question to the judge if it did not correctly represent what the hold-out was arguing. So I would think it is likely that the question asked earned the approval of the holdout. (I think the squiggles and various corrections indicates that the query was written by the foreperson, and then edited to gain approval of the holdout afterwards before sending it to the judge.) Therefore, the person holding out for acquittal is oblivious to the ridicule being directed at him/her. Or maybe the holdout is not oblivious of the ridicule, he/she just doesn't care. In which case, Libby might be in decent shape.

As Other Tom humorously wrote on the next thread: "Best spin I can put on the reasonable doubt question is that there's a holdout, and he's a moron. But at least he's OUR moron."

hit and run

OK, Charlie.

Now onto your geography.

I used to live near Wadsworth and Hampden (denver).

I'm not trying to pin you down...but....

Sue

I love you Sue.

I hope Mrs. H&R, if she reads that, understands it's the beer and not me you love. ::grin::

through Texarkana

I-30?

OnTheThirdRail

First my rewording of the second question:

Original:
We would like clarification of the term "reasonable doubt." Specifically, 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.

reworded:
Is it necessary for the government to present evidence that it is impossible for someone to forget an event in order to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?


I am reading through the jury instructions and What I don't get is:

1)Does Walton need his eyes check because it is like 30 font with quadruple spacing - actual text could be compressed to 5-10 pages max?

2)What the difference between obstruction and pujery is?

3)On page 77-78 it talks about that the fraudulent statements have to be material to the case and I don't see how they were. Was any evidence presented to show that it was?

Charlie (Colorado)

Whatever. I never liked Daingerfield anyways.

It just gets no respect.

Legal Lurker

Sue,

London is approx. 19 miles N/NE of Junction and S/SW of Mason.

Sue

it would make little sense to send a question to the judge if it did not correctly represent what the hold-out was arguing.

I actually thought of that before I posted what I did. You could be right and more likely you are right, but I'm still going to go with what I originally said. The person didn't know how to articulate what he was trying to say. He isn't feeling the guilty verdict and they are trying to convince him his standard for reasonable doubt is too high. (I am using him to save time and typing.)

Charlie (Colorado)

Now onto your geography.

Call it Wadsworth and the Boulder Turnpike. I live right in the middle of the Omni Interlocken Golf Course.

On the internet, nobody knows you're a prairie dog.

hit and run

Sue: Yes, I30 thru Texarkana.

I will admit, mrs hit and run has made that trip more than me.


I love you, Sue. Mrs hit and run is an old Oilers fan and an old Rockets fan. She understands.......heh

Walter

OK,

I've waited 'til it's late in the thread and many of the kids have set sail on the sea of dreams before posting my choice to play Joe.

. Did his best work in the 1980's.
. Has stayed on the scene long after his broad appeal waned.
. Creates sticky situations for his intimate friends.
. Is best known for what spews from his 'head'.

The choice is obvious:

Peter 'Don't touch my hair' North.

Nora Kuzma is then the only logical choice for Valerie 'Please don't out me' Plame.

Charlie (Colorado)

Or, it this helps, Jeffco Airport, due N of the 11N threshold about 500 yards.

Sara (Squiggler)

You know, that could work. Never be able to get a budget though, neither of them has opened big in years.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | March 02, 2007 at 07:30 PM

I've changed my mind anyway. I don't want the man I consider to be the sexiest guy in Hollywood, Kurt Russell, playing obnoxious, low-level Joe. Besides, Kurt could never gain enough weight to look the part. Joe is a real tubby.

So, my new pick is John O'Hurley, who fits on soooooooo many levels and someone unlikeable, such as Sharon Stone, to play Val.

As to Kurt and Goldie, I believe they are more into producing these days. Kurt has mostly kept his movies to about one a year.

Interesting quote about him on Wiki, which doesn't really surprise me as I'd heard that stardom was always secondary to him where family and outside interests are concerned:

Russell is a prominent member of the United States Libertarian Party. He claims that he was often an outcast in Hollywood because of his Libertarian views so moved to an area outside Aspen, Colorado, where he has tried his hand at writing (he co-wrote the screenplay for Escape from L.A.). In February 2003, Russell and Hawn moved to Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, so that their son could play hockey.
Sue

London is approx. 19 miles N/NE of Junction and S/SW of Mason

I have never heard of it. Sorry. I do know where Mason is. Jordan Cattle Auction is thereabouts.

MayBee

I still am laughing at Macauly Calkin as David Corn. That's my favorite so far. Along with Tim Robbins as Clarice's boobs.

hit and run

Charlie - we lived in apartments - the Pines at Marston Lake.

Our phone# was one digit off of Racoon Creek GC. Their's was xxx-GOLF and ours was xx-GLOF. And we used to get calls for Racoon Creek all the time. So much so, that I used to just take the tee times to keep from having to explain the error.

(oh and in 96 we got to see them stuff socks down all the prairie dog holes there and smoke em out!)

Heh. You play golf? I used to work at Applwood (owned by Coors, in Golden) and Arrowhead (in Roxborough)

oh and Interlocken was the up and coming place to be when I was there...a co-worker went to Sun,,,and that was kewl to all of us "left behind"

Sue

Along with Tim Robbins as Clarice's boobs.

LOL.

hit and run

Walter.

I've missed you.

MTT

Elliot,

I think this is the problem, "(1)(b) Contrary to Libby's grand jury testimony, Libby did not advise Matthew Cooper, on or about July 12, 2003, that Libby had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did Libby advise him that Libby did not know whether this assertion was true; rather, Libby confirmed to Cooper, without qualification, that Libby had heard that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. "

The tension of this charge is this, per clarice:

"No, the question is did Libby forget about hearing it from Cheney when , after hearing it from Russert he told Cooper he'd heard it from other reporters but doesn't know if it's true."

This is important, I think, because it brings the VP into the charge, and therefore, into the whole "malign neocon cabal" as put so lovely by someone at FDL.

Without this charge, there is little to pin on the VP.

Again, the jury is confused, "What was the lie?" and "To whom was it told?"

Or not.

!

Just sayin'.

Charlie (Colorado)

oh and Interlocken was the up and coming place to be when I was there...a co-worker went to Sun,,,and that was kewl to all of us "left behind"

Yup, I live directly across the street from the Sun campus. Joined Sun in NYC, but part of the deal was that I got to move back to CO when they opened the Broomfield campus.

I used to golf, but I had a car wreck in 2000 and back trouble followed. Now I do Pilates, which means I get to spend my exercise time with young lissome women instead of sweaty guys.

hit and run

yes, but do the lissome women there shave their armpits?

it's not Boulder, but it's close....

Charlie (Colorado)

Actually, the Pilates school *is* Boulder. And as I understand it, now girls in Boulder shave *everything*.

Sue

OMG! How did we get from a preacher in Athens to shaving in Boulder? We are lost sheep, Tom. You should rescue us. Quickly.

hit and run

*everything*

::sigh::

Sue, let me try and tie this together...
(uh, yeah)

I remember my single days in CO. I was a chaplain at the YMCA of the Rockies in Winter Park. I did Grays and Torries with a girl that worked there. A non-shaver (this was early 90s). We spoke Spanish the whole way up. And at the summit, had folks asking us where we were from. I spoke horrible Spanish, and she maybe average. But...enough to fool most of the people most of the time! She wuz kewl.

hit and run

yeah, i mispelled tore eeees. but unless Charlie corrects me....
(Make 7-)Up Yours.

Walter

I've missed you too, Hit and Run.

I was given the chance* to spend a week with the kinder and could not pass it by.


*Of course, the opportunity arose because they couldn't attend school with fevers and flu, while I couldn't get too far from an appropriate receptacle, what with the nausea & all. But it was SERIOUS quality time, I'm telling you.

hit and run

Walter...heh...my kids have had strep this week, but no projectiles.....yet.....

Walter

I'm jealous of your YMCA of the Rockies experience. I've only stayed there once, but I went to Winter Park/Mary Jane for 10 days each winter between '80 & '87.

*sigh*

Probably five years until I can drag my kids out there in the back of a station wagon.

(My 43-year-old sister is STILL angry at me for tearing carilage in my knee in 1980. Not for getting hurt; but because I got to ride in the front seat to keep my leg straight the whole way home.)

Syl

MTT

"No, the question is did Libby forget about hearing it from Cheney when , after hearing it from Russert he told Cooper he'd heard it from other reporters but doesn't know if it's true."

This is important, I think, because it brings the VP into the charge, and therefore, into the whole "malign neocon cabal" as put so lovely by someone at FDL.

Without this charge, there is little to pin on the VP.

WITH this charge there is still NOTHING to pin on Cheney.

Cheney told Libby that Wilson's wife was counter-proliferation. He didn't tell Libby to get the word out. So whether Libby remembers Cheney telling him or not, there is nothing to pin on the VP.

Just fitz' fantasy that Cheney whispered in Libby's ear to BLOW HER COVER and nobody heard him.

hit and run

Walter - I was chaplain in 91...but not Estes Park. I was seasonal...summer only. The dude in Estes Park was permanent. Too bad you weren't there in 91....I did a series that summer on the "I Am's" of Jesus. Oh, I was young and naive....now I am a wee bit older and just as naive....

clarice

Yes, Syl, But I can see why both Libby and the juror is having trouble w/ that--If at the gj he was being asked what he told Cooper and that testimony was consistent w/ what he did in fact tell Cooper, one would expect the obstruction charge to suffer the same fate as the perjury count--That is if a juroe believes that is what he told Cooper, how can he be prosecuted for telling the gj that is what he told Cooper?

hit and run

Hell, I don't know which thread is the most hip and happening, so I'll post this where I've been tonight.....


HAPPY BIRTHDAY JANE!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I stayed up just to be the first one to say it on the actual day (EST that is)

clarice

h & r--You really are something when it comes to women. I am finding it hard to picture you as a chaplain--even a summer one.*wink*

Syl

clarice

Your 'but' had nothing to do with my comment, but I agree. There's puzzlement.

They may be having difficulty with two things specifically here. Matching up what Libby said he said with Cooper's notes. AND they may possibly think Libby had to have said BOTH 'reporters' AND 'don't know if it's even true.' Before they clear him of perjury.

Also, I had mentioned today somewhere that their concerns with this part of the obstruction count may only have been for insurance. Perhaps they were close to unanimity on guilty on another part of the obstruction so that this part wouldn't matter.

I'm just not seeing much good in the jury questions and am holding out hope only on the fact that we don't really know what's going on in that room.

clarice

It's a troubling puzzlement--

I made an error--I meant to say******But I can see why both Libby and the juror HAD trouble w/ that**********

hit and run

Clarice, you are right.

Mrs hit and run came home about an hour ago. (no 4 am for her this fine evening!). And I read through all of my comments to her. She paid attention to the first half (the ones that dealt with Texas!) And now she is sleeping like a baby.

And she brought me some Shiner....which she stole from me to take to the neighbors earlier this evening!!!!!!!!!!

It's allllllll gooooooodddd.....

Happy Birthday (yesterday) Texas!!!!

Syl

Clarice

On the 'don't think of it as two problems' thread, I figured out why Cheney didn't call Code Red.

:)

hit and run

By the way....

Earlier this week, I sent an email to the friend who's house we stayed at over Thanksgiving - who lives in DC.

Her husband was deployed at the time, and was due back. I was concerned that his rotation might have been affected by the surge. Hence my email.

Well. She called back and left a voicemail. Her husband has indeed retrurned from Iraq and is home now.

So.

I told mrs hit and run that we should go see them (I've never met our friend's husband, I wasn't able to make their wedding!).

The first thing outta mrs hit and run's mouth?

"You just want to try and go see Clarice, don't you?"

No.

But, as an added benefit..eh, yeah. But I HAVE to meet this doood, he's bad a$$ mofo.

clarice

Well, let me know if you decide to come. I might even feed you all.
Syl, I'll go check that thread.

Elliott

Syl,

I think you could be on the right track with your theory that the jury is thinking Libby said he was unsure of the veracity of Cooper's information but did not tell him that he heard that information from reporters.

However, if they accept that Cooper is wrong about an important element of the conversation, they can't really believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Libby didn't tell Cooper the stuff about reporters? Can they?

TexasIsHeaven

"Happy Birthday (yesterday) Texas!!!!"

Thanks H&R - and here's a Lone Star for you -the National Beer of Texas.

You know we were our own country at one time - we need to look into that again - maybe start giving out Texas passports only to those who truly appreciate Texas.

Syl

Elliot

they can't really believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Libby didn't tell Cooper the stuff about reporters? Can they?

I would hope not. But since fitz also said Libby confirmed to Cooper 'without qualification' the bit about 'not even know if it's true' is qualification and should be enough.

hit and run

TexasIsHeaven:
You know we were our own country at one time - we need to look into that again - maybe start giving out Texas passports only to those who truly appreciate Texas.

Well, since we left Texas, we have been wandering as if in the wilderness. It was perhaps a year ago the mrs hit and run finally defined our life....we are Texas missionaries. It's been 13 years now, but, we toil in the fields to reap the harvest.

Oh and I've always referred to her as The Republic of Texas since we left.

And we've decided that our kids -- born in Denver and Nashville -- are just as much Texan as those born to military families overseas are American.

We'll return home some day. But not until the Good Lord completes the work He has planned for us.

steve

The Cooper charge is just too stupid for words. If Libby had really said "I heard that too" but NOT "I got it from other reporters" but told the GJ he said both, how does that mislead or confuse any investigation about anything? I do not understand why the defense didn't even try to get that sucker dismissed before it went to the jury.

Elliott

Syl,

In the jury instructions, I remembered it being more specific as to what qualifying statement he didn't make, but I've looked again and I think your point is also valid in regard to them.

"According to count one of the indictment, Mr. Libby carried out this corrupt endeavor by making the following three allegedly false statements to the grand jury:...

(3.) That Mr. Libby advised Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on or about July 12, 2003, that he had heard that other reporters were saying that Mr. Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, and further advised him that Mr. Libby did not know whether this assertion was true."

I'm pretty sure that the jury has to believe he made neither assertion to Cooper in order to be convicted.

clarice

I am going to bed. Here is the question:
Specifically, 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 reasonable doubt. (BTW, the original question said not "Specifically" but "For example" suggesting it was at least at one point only an exemplar, not the exact point of the questioner.
***

Here is a translation:If a juror finds on the record evidence that it is possible that Libby forgot must he he acquit?

I think that is a fair translation.

Syl

Elliot

If they find Libby DID say one of those two things I think it would be okay. I don't know if THEY think that, however.

Read it again though. It sounds like Libby told Cooper (brought it up). Not that Cooper told him and then Libby tried not to confirm. It makes the wording even more confusing.

It's something we understood from the indictment--that it seems Libby overconfessed and said he brought it up with Cooper. I don't think this point was raised at all in the trial. Fitz wouldn't, because I'm sure leaving it confusing is working to his advantage. And Wells didn't either--not sure why.

Patton

Many seem to forget that Libby did not say, HE FORGOT ABOUT PLAME COMPLETELY AND FOREVER. He simply said he forgot about plame FOR A MOMENT.

So the jury would have to decide if it is reasonable for someone to have forgotten FOR A MOMENT, during a converstion.

Patton

Looking at this another way:

Based on Russerts testimony alone, one may find it REASONABLE Libby lied.

Based on the cross examination which showed Russert had in the past denied a conversation took place and was later found to be lying/incorrect, thus causing REASONABLE DOUBT in Russerts testimony.

Fitz could have alleviated this REASONABLE DOUBT by showing evidence that Russert was not aware of Plame by either:

1. Gregory (Told by Fliescher)
2. Mitchell (CLAIMED TO KNOW)
3. Electronic wire (NBC used re Wilson article)

The Government filed to do so by making excuses rather then presenting evidence.

REASONABLE DOUBT in this instance should say NOT GUILTY.

Patton

'filed' should be 'failed'.

Patton

ChrisO says: ""The more you folks discuss the jury, the more your contempt for them comes through. All you've ever heard from them is a few brief notes, yet you're accusing them of being caught up in the glamour of their positions, being concerned more about justifying their votes to their Democratic friends than actually delivering justice, and a bunch of other things"""

Actually, you are judging us based on a few notes on a blog. We are judging the jury based on:

1. Voir Doire
2. Valentines Shirts
3. Questions asked during the trial
4. Juror removal for not follow instructions.
5. Casual dress code.
6. Notes to judge in bad english, with words crossed out and the famous 'nevermind' question.

tom maguire

I will second secarr at 1:38 PM re the second note - the jury *may* be trying to work from the outside in, as it were - if they set the bar at "humanly possible", they can save themselves a lot of discusson by acquitting on that count now.

But if the bar ought to be lower, they have more to talk about.

Just a thought. Fortunately, these thoughts and a dollar fifty get you a cup of coffee.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame