Marcy!

Go Marcy!

Cheney in the library with a butter knife.

fitz?

emptywheel!

Wells’ behavior yesterday afternoon is extremely significant. From the description of it that Jane, Christy and Marcy provided in the fabulous PoliticsTV piece last night, Wells acted like a lawyer who had already lost his case: he sat, head in hands, not looking up, during Fitz’ entire summation (even during sidebar conferences). And equally bad, he and Jeffries displayed conflict within the defense team. Not the way a team acts when they think they are winning.

These non-verbal cues likely gave at least some members of the jury the impression that things were not going Libby’s way, and that the defense thought that the prosecution was making the more compelling case.

And they certainly gave me the impression that Wells himself believes that he already lost case.

From RBG and Peterr:

Merry Fitzmas

Please help the FDL Servers keep humming along by heeding the following tips.

1. Stay on topic. Please keep your comment(s) on the topic of the current live blogging.

2. Size matters. Try to keep comment length to a minimum — especially during live blogging.

3. Links matter. More than 2 or 3 links in a comment may cause that comment to get caught in moderation.

4. Beware the ziggurat! Please don’t nest more than 2 or 3 quotes in a comment. It may bust the margins and makes more work for the people behind the scenes.

5. Words matter. Avoid words like “ins*rance” or “vi*gra” to keep things from getting caught in moderation.

6. Do not feed the trolls. It just encourages them and makes life difficult for the mods. Ignore the trolls.

Moderators really don’t like to delete comments….really, they don’t…but if comments don’t follow these tips, sometimes your witty and well crafted comment will be caught up in the clean up and may never be read by your fellow commenters.

Oh…and did I mention, please Stay on Topic and Don’t Feed The Trolls?

Thanks.

Also, from Peterr’s rules — “The live-blogging is creating enormous demands on the FDL servers. For that reason, Emptywheel is updating only every 20 minutes or so, and time-stamping each update. Please do not “reload” the page more frequently than that.”

James Meek with NY Daily News is on c-span’s Washington Journal discussing the Libby case and taking call-in questions.
-

Merry Fitzmas!

Meek gives FDL big kudos on WJ, especially you livebloggers, you.
-

Marcy- your blogging of Fitz’a closing arguments yesterday moved me to tears. Thanks so much for being my eyes & ears for the last few weeks. Here’s to giving Fitz, you and FDL a standing ovation.

on cspan– Meek and a caller give major kudos to FDL for coverage of the trial and Ms. Christy gets mentioned!

It’s a must read he sez, for a lot of people– they are the stars of the show.

me waits for plea deal once the charge is rendered

perris @ 13

me waits for plea deal once the charge is rendered

Ain’t gonna happen. “Pardon ME?”
_

mack @
3

Cheney in the library with a butter knife.

Strike force in Gulf, waiting on trial outcome and further investigations.

Marcy — I just want to say thank you for the fantastic job you’ve done not only liveblogging the trial, but the way you’ve so thoroughly covered the whole case. You’re amazing!

PS - I plan on buying your book this weekend!

Here’s an invitation. If the server load gets high today (though prolly not as likely as yesterday during that awesomely moving summation liveblog by EW), you may wanna join some of us at a live-chat on another server, over at http://gabbly.com/firedoglake.comIt’s a fun kinda chat-app. Using it doesn’t burden FDL’s servers at all. We had as many as 67 folx in there at one point yesterday! It’s a good place to discuss any sort of Libby-related stuff at a far faster pace than is possible in these threads.

Rayne introduced it and imho it’s cool. Sometimes we get harrassed by hackers, in which case we retreat to a private redoubt. Others of us know how to get its URL to you without publishing it here. If you need its URL, please post your request in an FDL comment string.

If you wanna join us, C U over in chat-land. Remember, because Gabbly runs on a completely other server somewhere on the ‘net, using it takes some of the heavy load off the FDL servers!

Hint: Use two browser windows. Put the above URL in one, and the real FDL (this one) in the other. Position the windows where you can see both the chat about FDL and the real FDL. Refresh only the REAL FDL window.

Go FDL and Godspeed.

cbl, if you’re here, I’m reading the interview you linked to for me…can’t out it down

I had a great time yesterday Marcy. I took a vacation day and I was on Firedoglake all day long! It was so exciting. Best action in town all around.

Best.Vacation.Day.Ever.

This should be interesting. I re-read the indictment this morning, and I’m curious to see how closely the charges as told to the jury will match the wording - or as Fitz calls it, ‘the four corners’ - of the indictment.

I was struck by how well-structured the indictment charges are, in particular how little they rely on whether Miller, Cooper, and Russert’s memories are reliable or not. Instead they all rely on a comparison of Libby’s testimony against the fact that multiple government officials remember having conversations with him about Plame in the weeks leading up to the leak.

I think it’s plausible that Count 3 (False Statement) wrt to Cooper’s testimony could come is as ‘Not Guilty’, because that charge is the one that relies most heavily on Cooper’s memory, but even that one references Libby’s insistence that he believed he had heard of Plame’s CIA employment from reporters.

The other four counts include that assertion about reporters, plus Libby’s assertion that he was hearing it ‘as if for the first time’. That last phrase is simply not credible, beyond a reasonable doubt, given the multiple conversations Libby had with various officials and CIA briefers over the weeks prior to Plame’s outing.

So, assuming the jury instructions match the wording of the indictment, I think the jury will return a guilty verdict on at least 4 of the counts.
.

Cheney in the library with a butter knife.

this little hippie is counting on -

Patrick Fitzgerald in the courtroom with a lead pipe !

now maintaining radio silence and going over to Gabbly

((((mods))))

logorrhea @ 16

Marcy — I just want to say thank you for the fantastic job you’ve done not only liveblogging the trial, but the way you’ve so thoroughly covered the whole case. You’re amazing!

PS - I plan on buying your book this weekend!

By all means, buy it. I read it almost in one sitting. Riveting. I will repeat what I said yesterday; the importance of the work done here by Marcy, Jane, Christy et al cannot be overstated, given that the MSM have now largely become Soviet Pravda.
_

Guess Baker Botts likes one the alternates better, so this guy just shows up on the last day!?! Right.

I’m not lovin’ Jeralyn’s assessment

A bummer if I do say so. Any thoughts?

Gotta find the original writer, but here’s my version:

FDL goals:
On-topic, bitty
Don’t feed the trolls
Do feed the kitty.

so baker botts pulls the old “i have this attorney right here” trick? man, ain’t washington all atwitter.
after the guilty verdict comes in, wonder if broder will write that “fitzpatrick trashed the place, and it wasn’t his place.”

Perris, I’m over here

bookwoman @ 24

I’m not lovin’ Jeralyn’s assessment

A bummer if I do say so. Any thoughts?

she’s a defense lawyer. her inclinations are naturally filtered through such a perspective. (not that there’s anything wrong with that.)

bookwoman @ 24

I’m not lovin’ Jeralyn’s assessment

A bummer if I do say so. Any thoughts?

She’s playing both sides of the street so she can say I was right.

bookwoman @ 24

I’m not lovin’ Jeralyn’s assessment

A bummer if I do say so. Any thoughts?

I really enjoyed reading Jeralyn’s analysis during this trial. She really is an expert and is extremely intelligent.

That being said, Jeralyn has often been quite wrong in her predictions. Such as her belief in the strong likelihood that Cheney and Libby would testify, to give just one example.

My amateur prediction is that Jeralyn will be proven wrong in this assessment as well.

If govt proves every element of offense beyond reasonable doubt, then you must find guilty.

That’s not quite so clear-cut with the false statements, is it? Or am I wrong in thinking that the charges based on multiple statements are valid if one statement can be proved beyond reasonable doubt?

If there are any trial lawyers out there, I have a quick question.

Is there a conventional wisdom as to a connection between the length of jury deliberations and their judgment in favor of the prosecution or the defendant?

If so, which side is favored by short deliberations? Which by lengthy ones? Thanks.

bookwoman @ 24

I’m not lovin’ Jeralyn’s assessment

A bummer if I do say so. Any thoughts?

Is Jeralyn being a Devil’s Advocate or a Concern Troll? You decide.

[Mod Note; let’s be very careful how we use the “T” word please]

pseudonymous in nc @
31

If govt proves every element of offense beyond reasonable doubt, then you must find guilty.

That’s not quite so clear-cut with the false statements, is it? Or am I wrong in thinking that the charges based on multiple statements are valid if one statement can be proved beyond reasonable doubt?

Basing my statement on what I have read recently on various FDL threads, a charge based on multiple false statements is valid if one of the statements can be proven false beyond reasonable doubt.

bookworm @ 24: I’m not lovin’ Jeralyn’s assessment. A bummer if I do say so. Any thoughts?

See my post @ 20. It contains the same ‘talking points’ as the response I posted at Talkleft to Jeralyn’s assessment. (It’s, or was, response 11 over at Talkleft, but it seems to be gone now, possibly it’s in the moderation queue since my account there is new.)

NEW CONTEST: When will Dick Cheney resign - month/day/year?

bookwoman @ 24

I’m not lovin’ Jeralyn’s assessment

A bummer if I do say so. Any thoughts?

Jeralyn’s article reads in part like a defense summation - which is fine - those are her instincts as a defense lawyer.

However, I feel that she is wrong on the memory issue - I thought Team Fitz did an excellent job of pointing out why the memory defense was implausible in this case. Also - if human memory is THAT unreliable - it seems to undermine the whole foundation of a legal system based in large part on fallible human memory.

EW/Jane–Is Fitz wearing ashes on his forehead?

dmg @ 26

so baker botts pulls the old “i have this attorney right here” trick? man, ain’t washington all atwitter.
after the guilty verdict comes in, wonder if broder will write that “fitzpatrick trashed the place, and it wasn’t his place.”

…so-o-o, my inkling is correct, that such a move could be a hail-mary-pass by the defense? After some seriously deep combing thru jury member backgrounds, teamlibby might have gone & fetched up a “special order” xtra “atty” just to hang around & be an excuse to throw s’more sand?

*xyz @ 32: “If there are any trial lawyers out there, I have a quick question. … If so, which side is favored by short deliberations? Which by lengthy ones? Thanks.”

I’m not a trial lawyer, but common sense says that a lengthy deliberation would indicate possible disagreement among the jurors, and would tend result in more favorable outcomes for the defense.

Short deliberations are probably just as likely to go either way, but I agree with you, it would be nice to hear from one of the lawyers on that question.

Christy? Jeralyn? Bueller?

Jeralyn is expecting a ‘normal’ vigorous defense. It seems to me (IANAL) that the defense in this case has been hobbled. Scooter insists on taking fall for the Gipper. Wells frustrated, can’t do his job, can’t call Scooter, Cheney, etc. And he’s a Dem so they can blame the Dems. Dude!

Whew! I feel better with a little help from my friends..re: Jeralyn’s prediction. Thanks.

*xyz @ 30

bookwoman @ 24

I’m not lovin’ Jeralyn’s assessment

A bummer if I do say so. Any thoughts?

I really enjoyed reading Jeralyn’s analysis during this trial. She really is an expert and is extremely intelligent.

That being said, Jeralyn has often been quite wrong in her predictions. Such as her belief in the strong likelihood that Cheney and Libby would testify, to give just one example.

My amateur prediction is that Jeralyn will be proven wrong in this assessment as well.

I have known a number of criminal defense attorneys. A couple are good friends who have taken very high profile difficult cases. All extremely progressive/liberal politically. They are truly a breed unto themselves; in order to do their job well, they are conditioned to be skeptical of everything that comes from the government. And they also live in a world in which they often loose, as EPU has so often pointed out, the system (in normal criminal trials) is weighted heavily in favor of the Government.

With that in mind, I think Jeralyn is simply looking at this case as she would any case, as a defense attorney. Remember that she defended Timothy McVeigh, and did that in such a conscientious way that she continued to defend him even when he did not want to be (during the death penalty phase). And I really admired her for that, because I am such an ardent opponent of the death penalty; even for the likes of Timothy McVeigh.

AGAIN….what Jeralyn is doing is just being a suck-up to defense attorney jargon and games. Remember her defense of some of the most indefensible characters on her blog. Sorry all….but FDL has been a constant light and beacon for truth and FACTS…right now Jeralyn is ignoring facts so she can have it both ways. She does it on shows where she has appeared ALL THE TIME>…..

Jeralyn says (in her post’s conclusion),
“The smartest thing the defense did at trial was not to put Libby on the stand and subject him to what surely have been a withering cross-examination by Fitzgerald. The dumbest thing the Government did was charge too narrow a case and not indict Cheney along with Libby.
In other words, Fitzgerald missed the forest for the trees. Maybe he thought the case wasn’t there. But in charging such a stripped down version solely against Libby, I have to believe at least one juror, like me, will have a reasonable doubt and refuse to convict.
Will I be disappointed if there’s an acquittal? Yes, but in Fitzgerald, not the system. And if there’s a conviction? Then I’ll be disappointed in the Judge, for refusing to allow a memory expert to testify at trial. As much as I might prefer it otherwise, this case was about memory and reasonable doubt, not about the conspiracy that was proven to exist at the Administration’s highest levels of power.”

As Amb. Wilson said in the previous thread (in response to discussion about the focused parameters of this case), “They convicted Al Capone of tax evasion, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t a racketeer.”

I do not agree with Jeralyn that this case was about “memory and reasonable doubt”– and I think it is just the first step in a series of upcoming indictments. Guilty or Not Guilty, I definitely will not be disappointed in Fitzgerald!

Many thanks for all the good work, ladies!

Where will you wait for the verdict?

Just a not of thanks to the FDL crew, your work has been historic. I’ll lurk about from now on, but leave the comments to the experts. Thanks again, and start preparing for future events like this one, no telling where it will all end. But it surely won’t end here, this is just the clearing of the smokescreen, the removal of sand from our eyes.

Now we can see through the fog, and a very guilty Cheney seems to be coming into view.

We are all looking forward to your coverage of both Shooter and Turdblossom but I doubt they’ll be hiring Wells for their defense team…

At the risk of being redundant, I want to thank you for providing this coverage. Incredibly, I had to change from MSNBC and CNN to Cold Pizza to get away from another courtroom, “Nicole’s Body” hearing. If you haven’t, this judge would make Judge Judy look like Brandies. Whether we win(Libby Guilty and possibly go further) or lose your efforts were nothing less than outstanding. You have put me behind though. During Jury selection I started to tear up a bathroom for remodeling and it is still tore up. The verdict will be soon. I will be able to work euphorically or with pissed off determination.

I have to say that I am disappointed with this type of analysis from Jeralyn:

“Ted Wells’ closing was unfocused and meandering. But, he was emotional. The jury had to sense, as I did, that he believed with his whole heart in his argument. I think that will go a long way with the jury. William Jeffress more than adequately established the memory problems of all the witnesses in the case. The bottom line is, who’s to say Libby’s faulty recollections were a lie while the faulty recollections of the other witnesses were innocent mistakes?”

1. Of course the defense attorney appears to believe in his own argument. That’s why they pay him the big bucks. And others have contradicted Jeralyn somewhat, pointing out that the crying seemed fake and Wells’ generally came across as over-the-top. I wasn’t there, so I can’t say. Also, I’ve heard that Fitzgerald was pretty emotional too - doesn’t that count for anything? It would, if this was an acting contest, which it is not.

2. “who’s to say Libby’s faulty recollections were a lie while the faulty recollections of the other witnesses were innocent mistakes?”
Well, the jury is to say. That’s their job. They can look at motive. And they can look at the odds. It is Libby’s word against over a half-dozen witnesses.

JGabriel @ 20

The other four counts include that assertion about reporters, plus Libby’s assertion that he was hearing it ‘as if for the first time’. That last phrase is simply not credible, beyond a reasonable doubt, given the multiple conversations Libby had with various officials and CIA briefers over the weeks prior to Plame’s outing.

FYI, Scooter doesn’t have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his version of the Russert call is credible. Fitz has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Scooter’s version of the call was knowingly false.

However, given that Scooter’s version of the call is inherently incredible, and Russert’s testimony on the call was not budged during cross (despite his failure to return a phone call six years ago), I think Fitz gets a conviction on this count.

JGabriel @ 39

*xyz @ 32: “If there are any trial lawyers out there, I have a quick question. … If so, which side is favored by short deliberations? Which by lengthy ones? Thanks.”

I’m not a trial lawyer, but common sense says that a lengthy deliberation would indicate possible disagreement among the jurors, and would tend result in more favorable outcomes for the defense.

Short deliberations are probably just as likely to go either way, but I agree with you, it would be nice to hear from one of the lawyers on that question.

Christy? Jeralyn? Bueller?

IANAL, but I was a juror several times. My experience definitely did not fit the above “rules”, fwiw. Longest of the bunch, after much wrangling in jury room, turned up guilty all counts. Don’t panic yet, folks…

I really do appreciate Jeralyn’s participation here, as it is always helpful to have multiple perspectives and to challenge our assumptions, especially in this situation when we have such deeply felt convictions propelling our wishful thinking.

BUT, let’s remember that Jeralyn is not only a defense lawyer, but a contrarian by nature.

Moreover, her comcluding paragraph says she will be disappointed whether there is an acquittal or a conviction, either way. That makes no sense to me.

pseudonymous in nc @
31

If govt proves every element of offense beyond reasonable doubt, then you must find guilty.

That’s not quite so clear-cut with the false statements, is it? Or am I wrong in thinking that the charges based on multiple statements are valid if one statement can be proved beyond reasonable doubt?

I recall that the instructions negotiated was that there were multiple NECESSARY elements (intent, valid memory, reliability of testimony/evidence, etc.), and several “false statements” embedded within one of the charges, any one of which, if true, would be SUFFICIENT to establish that element.

One of the charges had four false statements, any one of which would be sufficient to prove THAT element.

From Jeralyn at HuffPost:

In the end, this trial must be ruled by the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt. The charges the Government brought against Libby are narrow and specific as to the exact statements about which he allegedly lied. In the end, no smoking gun was introduced to establish Libby lied as opposed to being mistaken. The lack of evidence presented must be held to work against the Government.

Hmm. Jeralyn?

Pectopah, from your #39 on the previous thread:
I have actually seen a bumper sticker that read “I support that guy in China who makes all the magnetic yellow ribbons.” This was about 2 years ago.

We have a posse of very clever ladies delivering us our information.

I do not recall discussion about there being any possible connection between Mrs Wilson’s appearance and Cheney’s irresponsible “outing”. We have seen how Cheney visited Arlington a lot during this period —— what price one his pals sneering? It would be just the sort of thing the P of Scum would like.

jgabriel @ 20: “The other four counts include that assertion about reporters, plus Libby’s assertion that he was hearing it ‘as if for the first time’. That last phrase is simply not credible, beyond a reasonable doubt …”

litagatormom @ 49: “FYI, Scooter doesn’t have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his version of the Russert call is credible. Fitz has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Scooter’s version of the call was knowingly false.

However, given that Scooter’s version of the call is inherently incredible … I think Fitz gets a conviction on this count.”

Umm, not sure of your point here, litagatormom. ‘Not credible’ and ‘incredible’ are pretty synomymous, as far as I can see. It wasn’t my intent to suggest that Scooter had to prove his innocence, but that Fitz had proved the incredibility of Scooter’s ‘as if for the first time’ assertion, beyond a reasonable doubt - in my opinion, anyway.

(I’m trying to see how you read my post as saying Scooter had to prove he was credible, but I’m not quite getting it. Please explain, if it’s not too OT.)

> I’m not a trial lawyer, but common sense says
> that a lengthy deliberation would indicate
> possible disagreement among the jurors, and
> would tend result in more favorable outcomes
> for the defense.

Speaking as a lay citizen, I would think that any jury deliberating a known high-profile national-security case would take their time to work through the charges and testimony. And there is a lot of conflicting testimony to consider. So if they don’t come back in 30 minutes with “not guilty” I would expect them to take at least 3 days regardless of the outcome.

Cranky

The Michael Jackson jury deliberated for four days (20 hours) before finding him not guilty of rape.

So don’t get nervous if after 2 or 3 days nothing happens.

Jerelyn is merely making the arguments fot the opposition. As a good attorney she leaves her emotions at the door. I suspect we are close to arguing that she is partisan for the other side. Wrong!

dmg @ 28

bookwoman @ 24

I’m not lovin’ Jeralyn’s assessment

A bummer if I do say so. Any thoughts?

she’s a defense lawyer. her inclinations are naturally filtered through such a perspective. (not that there’s anything wrong with that.)

I’m a defense lawyer too (though in the civil context, mostly) and I think there will be conviction on at least some counts. What surprises me most about Jerralyn’s assessment is not that she sees opportunity for reasonable doubt — there is almost always the possibility that at least one juror will find some — but that she thinks Walton erred in not letting the defense put on a memory expert. There may be some need for a memory expert when you are talking about prosecutions based on recovered memories of long-ago abuse. Blocking out a traumatic event for years and years, and recovering it suddenly, is something beyond the experience of most people, and requires some explaining. But an expert to opine that people can forget stuff? Everyone forgets stuff. Everyone has forgotten that their spouse told them a week ago that s/he would be out for dinner on Wednesday. Everyone has forgotten a doctor’s appointment. Everyone forgotten a conversation they had a month ago about something that didn’t seem important at the time. And everyone knows that when they are crazy busy or stressed, something is more likely to “slip their mind.”

In short, unlike recovered memory, the possibility of forgotten conversations is easily understood by lay people. The question is, do the facts proven at trial support, or disprove, that the defendant in this case forgot about a particular conversation or conversations? Is it possible that, given the number of conversations, the defendant’s own written notes, etc., that the defendant really forgot?

That’s the question in this case, and no memory expert was needed to mount that defense. Remember, this is not a case about Libby forgetting from June/July to October that he’d talked about Plame with 9 different people. This is a case about Libby “forgetting” in mid-July that he’d been talking about Plame for the immediately preceding four weeks, including the very week he “learned as if for the first time” that all the reporters knew Plame was CIA.

What memory expert was going to be able to opine that THAT scenario was likely?

“belief in the strong likelihood that Cheney and Libby would testify”

Sorry to gloat, but I don’t know ANYONE, including a small gaggle of lawyers, who really expected Cheney to testify, even when they were telling the judge it would happen.

Cheney under oath?

He would simply never submit to that, he’s got too many secrets and lies to hide. Getting Cheney under oath will require our most powerful legal eagles to bring the hammer down.

But, of course, Deadeye IS above the law. Just ask the Wall Street Journal. Or his pal with the scattergun scars.

Rich @ 50

I really do appreciate Jeralyn’s participation here, as it is always helpful to have multiple perspectives and to challenge our assumptions, especially in this situation when we have such deeply felt convictions propelling our wishful thinking.

BUT, let’s remember that Jeralyn is not only a defense lawyer, but a contrarian by nature.

Moreover, her comcluding paragraph says she will be disappointed whether there is an acquittal or a conviction, either way. That makes no sense to me.

Contrarian by nature, disappointed whether there is an acquittal or a conviction - I have to agree. I’ve seen her on talking head shows since the early days of the OJ Simpson debacle trial. There’s something about her commentary I’ve always liked but it’s not usually her conclusions - they don’t seem to follow the observations she’s presenting. It’s like she’s arguing with herself.

Adie @ 50: “I was a juror several times. My experience definitely did not fit the above “rules”, fwiw. Longest of the bunch, after much wrangling in jury room, turned up guilty all counts. Don’t panic yet, folks…”

Thanks, Adie. Guess my ‘common sense’ was wrong. C’est la vie.

Jeralyn, I’d guess, is thinking like a lawyer. But do jurors think like lawyers? Or do they think like ordinary people? As an ordinary, nonlawyer person, I think the prosecution made a very strong argument when they said that it’s not each witness’ recollection vs. Libby’s, but the cumulative effect of nine people’s recollections vs. Libby’s. I think they also made their case by pointing out that Scooter “Faulty Memory” Libby remembered lots of things in fine detail — Valerie Plame was the only thing he couldn’t remember. Common sense says, “What are the odds that all these people are wrong?” and “What are the odds that Libby is forgetful only about this one thing?”

I agree that Jeralyn is a contrarian by nature & that Jeralyn’s predictions are very often wrong.

*xyz @ 48

I have to say that I am disappointed with this type of analysis from Jeralyn:

“Ted Wells’ closing was unfocused and meandering. But, he was emotional. The jury had to sense, as I did, that he believed with his whole heart in his argument. I think that will go a long way with the jury.”

Frankly, I’m mystified by Jeralyn seeming to fall for this obvious ploy. Does she honestly think Wells - tough, experienced, seasoned as he would surely be at this stage of his career - does she actually buy that tearful act?!

I find myself shedding real tears for our soldiers every day but, for Libby???! C’monnnn! I’m betting that jury has their emotions filed appropriately. As for Wells? tears? schmears! *snort*

JEP @ 62

“belief in the strong likelihood that Cheney and Libby would testify”

Sorry to gloat, but I don’t know ANYONE, including a small gaggle of lawyers, who really expected Cheney to testify, even when they were telling the judge it would happen.

Cheney under oath?

He would simply never submit to that, he’s got too many secrets and lies to hide. Getting Cheney under oath will require our most powerful legal eagles to bring the hammer down.

But, of course, Deadeye IS above the law. Just ask the Wall Street Journal. Or his pal with the scattergun scars.

Jeralyn seemed to think Cheney would testify. But you’re absolutely right, most people did not expect him to testify.

bookwoman @ 24

I’m not lovin’ Jeralyn’s assessment

A bummer if I do say so. Any thoughts?

My opinion is Jeralyn lives in a very fuzzy world. Early on, when I first was acquainting myself with blogs, I visited Talk Left and read a few if her posts, and found some points that didn’t make sense. I remember that I commented something like “So am I crazy or…” and she answered no I wasn’t crazy, she misspoke. I think she does that a lot. I can tell you that at that time I was high most of the time. Yet even in my (sort of)altered state, I could discern her mistakes. Due to a medical condition, I can’t do that anymore, but I sure wish I could and that I had some of whatever it is she’s on, because I think it must be really good stuff!

The converstation that should have occurred…

Russert to Libby; “Yeah, all the reporters know it”

Libby, “well, hell yes, Tim-boy, I TOLD THEM!”

JGabriel @ 56

jgabriel @ 20: “The other four counts include that assertion about reporters, plus Libby’s assertion that he was hearing it ‘as if for the first time’. That last phrase is simply not credible, beyond a reasonable doubt …”

Umm, not sure of your point here, litagatormom. ‘Not credible’ and ‘incredible’ are pretty synomymous, as far as I can see. It wasn’t my intent to suggest that Scooter had to prove his innocence, but that Fitz had proved the incredibility of Scooter’s ‘as if for the first time’ assertion, beyond a reasonable doubt - in my opinion, anyway.

(I’m trying to see how you read my post as saying Scooter had to prove he was credible, but I’m not quite getting it. Please explain, if it’s not too OT.)

You said that Scooter’s version of the Russert call was “not credible, beyond a reasonable doubt.” I thought, but may have misread what you meant as a result of comma placement. All I meant was that Fitz has the burden, and that he had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Scooter knowingly lied. Fitz presented credible evidence that Scooter’s version, as described in his GJ testimony and FBI interview, was false, and that he had to known it was false. That’s what I meant by incredible. Sorry if I was confusing.

bookwoman @
24

I’m not lovin’ Jeralyn’s assessment

A bummer if I do say so. Any thoughts?

Jeralyn seems to be misapprehending MEMORY with situation in the case of Dickerson. Dickerson may not have FORGOTTEN that Ari told him…he may not have “heard” Ari tell him…he was distracted or incognizant of the “meaning” or importance of that roadside statement.

Let’s face it…when Bob Woodward was told about Plame by Armitage HE SIMPLY DIDN’T GET IT…he didn’t see why that would be important to the leakers. Armitage had to essentially hit him over the head with WHY. So a lot of reporters were unresponsive to the message. That could have been either from their not understanding the logic from the viewpoint of the leakers because they wouldn’t see why the CIA would be sending a spouse on a “junket” to Niger (it not being the #1 spot for a holiday……remember Dickerson and Ari were in Uganda and Uganda is 20 times more developed than Niger). Or perhaps they simply weren’t that involved in the Plame case. Lots of reporters still seem woefully incomprehending of the basic facts of the case.

And before Novak’s accusations actually spelled out in newsprint the not-so-veiled White House “push back” they may not have been all that interested in the Niger yellowcake issue. In fact, news coverage on the Novak revelations were surprisingly sparse and short-lived for most of the summer of ‘03. It wasn’t until September that it really erupted.

That’s the question in this case, and no memory expert was needed to mount that defense. Remember, this is not a case about Libby forgetting from June/July to October that he’d talked about Plame with 9 different people. This is a case about Libby “forgetting” in mid-July that he’d been talking about Plame for the immediately preceding four weeks, including the very week he “learned as if for the first time” that all the reporters knew Plame was CIA.

What memory expert was going to be able to opine that THAT scenario was likely?

Litagatormom, that scenario simply wouldn’t wash with most normal people. If your boss is angry about something, you remember it: everyone knows that (which was why Fitz’s focus on the anger in the OVP was so powerful). The only way that I could see that they might make a such an argument plausible was by arguing that Libby was so injured by breathing the foul exhalations of Darth Vader’s bad breath that he had developed PSTD! [snark]

It’s certainly true that Fitz took a risk by going for the very narrow charges against Libby.

He provided a defense “there was no underlying crime so Libby had no motive to lie- he was never in any jeopardy.

Had he gone after BOTH the leaking case AND the perjury- he would have destroyed that defense..

Of course he MAY have had good strategic reasons for doing it the way he did- like compartmentalizing the trial so that the best evidence regarding the leak conspiracy remains confidential. We won’t know for a while- but we have no evidence that Fitz is super human and beyond error. It’s worth having a serious discussion of Jeralyn’s points.

Hey, Jane and I are going upstairs. We’ll update when we get back!!

“Going upstairs” - riiiiight. Munchies to follow.
-

Given the high profile nature of this trial, I expect the jury to take a long time. You don’t want to make a mistake on a jury, and especially not if it’s going to be dissected on the front page of the paper, glaring lights of the studio, and a thousand and one blogs across the internet.

I’m with Cranky Observer @ 58. They’ll take their time, go over all the instructions and the jury response forms multiple times, just to make sure they are reading and doing it right.

Then they’ll send Scooter to a government housing facility and provide him with a new job. How’s his sheet-folding ability?

Nellieh @ 47

At the risk of being redundant, I want to thank you for providing this coverage. Incredibly, I had to change from MSNBC and CNN to Cold Pizza to get away from another courtroom, “Nicole’s Body” hearing. If you haven’t, this judge would make Judge Judy look like Brandies. Whether we win(Libby Guilty and possibly go further) or lose your efforts were nothing less than outstanding. You have put me behind though. During Jury selection I started to tear up a bathroom for remodeling and it is still tore up. The verdict will be soon. I will be able to work euphorically or with pissed off determination.

I turned off KO last night when he got to story about Judge Larry. Perfect example of what is wrong with the justice system.

What time is SMACKDOWN in the PRETTYMAN supposed to start?

Woodhall Hollow @ 73

That’s the question in this case, and no memory expert was needed to mount that defense. Remember, this is not a case about Libby forgetting from June/July to October that he’d talked about Plame with 9 different people. This is a case about Libby “forgetting” in mid-July that he’d been talking about Plame for the immediately preceding four weeks, including the very week he “learned as if for the first time” that all the reporters knew Plame was CIA.

What memory expert was going to be able to opine that THAT scenario was likely?

Litagatormom, that scenario simply wouldn’t wash with most normal people. If your boss is angry about something, you remember it: everyone knows that (which was why Fitz’s focus on the anger in the OVP was so powerful). The only way that I could see that they might make a such an argument plausible was by argueing that Libby was so injured by breathing the foul exhalations of Darth Vader’s bad breath that he had developed PSTD! [snark]

I agree. But perhaps Vice-President Chee-nee, while venting his anger over Wilson and the CIA, also fondled Libby. Libby, traumatized by this abuse, blocked out the entire conversation. Subsequently, every time Plame came up in conversation, his traumatized subconscious brought him back to the hideous moment when Chee-nee fondled him, and he blocked those conversations out too. Only when Timmeh FAILED to mention Plame did Libby’s subconscious recover his knowledge of Plame’s identity. However, in the semi-hallucinagenic rush of recovered memory, Libby erroneously attributed this knowledge to Russert, with whom he was talking at the time, instead of Chee-nee.

I think that might have worked better with the jury. Whaddya think?

Adie @
39

dmg @ 26

so baker botts pulls the old “i have this attorney right here” trick? man, ain’t washington all atwitter.
after the guilty verdict comes in, wonder if broder will write that “fitzpatrick trashed the place, and it wasn’t his place.”

…so-o-o, my inkling is correct, that such a move could be a hail-mary-pass by the defense? After some seriously deep combing thru jury member backgrounds, teamlibby might have gone & fetched up a “special order” xtra “atty” just to hang around & be an excuse to throw s’more sand?

sounds plausible/probable
been re-re-re reading All the Presidents Men, how quaint, and see that nothing is beyond these gopigs.

litagatormom @ 70: “You said that Scooter’s version of the Russert call was “not credible, beyond a reasonable doubt.” I thought, but may have misread what you meant as a result of comma placement. All I meant was that Fitz has the burden, and that he had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Scooter knowingly lied.Fitz presented credible evidence that Scooter’s version, as described in his GJ testimony and FBI interview, was false, and that he had to known it was false. …”

I think I was saying the same thing - though perhaps without the emphasis on Fitz’s burden, as I just thought that was common knowledge.

Anyway, I think there’s just some sort of semantic miscommunication here, not sure if it’s due to how I wrote it, but I’ll try to be clearer or more precise going forward.

(Oh, and actually, I just meant the statement ‘hearing it as if for the first time’ was incredible, not the entirety of Scooter’s version. Does that clear up what I was getting at?)

one logical reading of jeralyn’s point, btw, is that, short of a written or taped record of stated intentions, she believes there is never any way to convict on a count of perjury or lying. because it’s all about intent, you see, and the failings of memory.
so i’m not too worried about that. though, of course, it only takes one juror….

JGabriel @ 63

Adie @ 50: “I was a juror several times. My experience definitely did not fit the above “rules”, fwiw. Longest of the bunch, after much wrangling in jury room, turned up guilty all counts. Don’t panic yet, folks…”

Thanks, Adie. Guess my ‘common sense’ was wrong. C’est la vie.

I’m not saying you’re wrong. My own personal experience represents a miniscule sample-size. Maybe average does support your “common sense”. But this is far from an “average” trial, no?! So I’m guessing high likelihood that “normal” rules of thumb wouldn’t necessarily apply.

I’m also privately betting?/hoping all of those jurors take this task very seriously, and will do their best. After a summation like what Fitz gave, it’s highly likely, I’m a-thinkin’, that the jurors will feel strongly compelled to rise to the occasion, regardless of their politics or anything else. These are unsettling times for most people in the country, most certainly including jurors, just mho…

cinnamonape @ 71

Let’s face it…when Bob Woodward was told about Plame by Armitage HE SIMPLY DIDN’T GET IT…he didn’t see why that would be important to the leakers. Armitage had to essentially hit him over the head with WHY. So a lot of reporters were unresponsive to the message. That could have been either from their not understanding the logic from the viewpoint of the leakers because they wouldn’t see why the CIA would be sending a spouse on a “junket” to Niger (it not being the #1 spot for a holiday……remember Dickerson and Ari were in Uganda and Uganda is 20 times more developed than Niger). Or perhaps they simply weren’t that involved in the Plame case. Lots of reporters still seem woefully incomprehending of the basic facts of the case.

Didn’t Dickerson go on in an article about how dodgy the food was in Uganda, and how the reporters complained about lack of 4 star accomodations? Given that, I can understand why they did not see Niger as a junket provided by a spouse.

Oh Marcy and Jane…… I have serious withdrawal!

February 21st, 2007 at 8:05 am
cinnamonape at 72 says:

Let’s face it…when Bob Woodward was told about Plame by Armitage HE SIMPLY DIDN’T GET IT…he didn’t see why that would be important to the leakers. Armitage had to essentially hit him over the head with WHY. So a lot of reporters were unresponsive to the message. That could have been either from their not understanding the logic from the viewpoint of the leakers because they wouldn’t see why the CIA would be sending a spouse on a “junket” to Niger (it not being the #1 spot for a holiday……remember Dickerson and Ari were in Uganda and Uganda is 20 times more developed than Niger). Or perhaps they simply weren’t that involved in the Plame case. Lots of reporters still seem woefully incomprehending of the basic facts of the case.

My theory is if an otherwise starving person is spoonfed hamburger every day of the week but one day they are spoonfed ground round, they may have a hard time telling the difference.

“So a lot of reporters were unresponsive to the message.” “Unresponsive” may be a misleading term to use here.

Maybe some of them realized they might be caught up in an illegal “outing” conspiracy if they ran with the little tidbits they were being thrown by the OVP minions.

Because when it came right down to it, Novak happily took the bait, and now he will be considered the actual point where Plame’s covert status was revealed PUBLICLY.

The “secret” he put into print had been floated to many journalists, hoping one of them was sleazy enough to threaten the life of a CIA operative just to get credit for the story.

(”sleazy enough to threaten the life of a CIA operative just to get credit for the story.” I think that may be the Wikkipedia definition for “Robert Novak”…)

So Woodward’s reaction, in not reporting what he had heard, may not have been so much one of complacency, as it was one of extreme caution.

And maybe it really mattered to Woodward and some other real journalists, that the life and work of an American anti-nuke agent could be threatened if he printed what they fed him.

I wonder, are there others out there in writerland who were offered the story, but like Woodward refused to print it because they knew it was WRONG, ILLEGAL and TREASONOUS?

Please, if you are one of these honorable ones, overcome your mortal fears and come forward, and tell the world about it.

dmg @ 82

one logical reading of jeralyn’s point, btw, is that, short of a written or taped record of stated intentions, she believes there is never any way to convict on a count of perjury or lying. because it’s all about intent, you see, and the failings of memory.
so i’m not too worried about that. though, of course, it only takes one juror….

That reading would be exactly what one might expect given her legal background, of course; as has been observed here in the last couple of days, it’s not rare for a defense attorney to try to confuse “reasonable doubt” with what Walton called “scientific certainty.”

(Aside: I don’t personally care for Walton’s usage there, but since it reflects a lay interpretation of the scientific method, I understand why he’d use it for jury instruction. Reasonable doubt, to my mind, corresponds directly to scientific “certainty.”)

First of all, FDLers, your coverage has been truly historic…not only in the mode (liveblogging) but in the content and analysis. Thank you all. You deserved all the great coverage you’ve gotten from the (other) press.

I do believe that if you hadn’t provided this kind of coverage that this trial would have been comandeered to the back pages of the major newspapers, and Anna Nicole would have dominated the news even more…if such a thing is possible. Like someone else, I’ve had to switch from MSNBC to CNN so as not to listen to the god-awful trial being held on the body of Anna Nicole Smith. It harkens back to the days of Chandra Levy. Didn’t the press admit embarrassment over that? Ah,humanity.

Again, thank you. And, it’s inspiring to see a straight-shooter like Fitz practice his craft.

Go Jane, Christy, and Marcy!