
Note from the jury:
We would like clarification on the charge as stated under Count 3 specifically:
Page 74 of the jury instructions, "Count three 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 of this was true. (i.e., is the charge that the statement was made or about theh content of the statement itself)
Judge's note at the bottom -- I am not exactly certain what you are asking me. Can you please clarify your question?
Second note from jury:
After further discussion, we are clear on what we need to do. No further clarification needed. Thank you. We apologize.
After the second note came back, the Libby team was clustered around some piece of paper (I assume the note) chuckling. They showed it to Fitz, and nobody seemed to alarmed one way or the other.
emptywheel here.
Here's my take on this. First, if Libby is acquitted of some,but not all, of the charges, it'll be this charge he is acquitted on first. It's a real he said he said charge, and Jeffress really did score some points against Matt Cooper's credibility.
Now, on all of these charges, it is often difficult to keep two things straight. There's the issue of whether Libby told a lie to journalists in July 2003. And whether he lied to the FBI about what he told to journalists in 2003. This charge is particularly confusing in that regard, because Libby's statement was so short and it contains such an obvious lie. So I suspect the entire jury probably agrees that, if Libby said he had no idea whether Plame worked for the CIA, he lied. But that's not the charge. The question, of course, is whether he lied when he said that to the FBI.
But the fact that they asked this question about THIS charge means they haven't had the same confusion with other charges. It means they haven't had the confusion in determining whether Libby lied to Russert when he allegedly said he was surprised when he learned about Plame.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
Fitz!
Fitz!
Doesn’t this look good for the prosecution?
Madness! Madness! Madness!
Give back the truth!
Now, Now, Now!! I want my verdict NOW!!!
Jane!
This is very nerve-wracking.
You called it, Jane.
Way to go.
Hope they are more clear-thinking as a collective bunch than the note suggests. What happened to all the Ph.Ds on the jury? I know one is gone but still…
That’s a good question.
Sounds like at least one juror is not sure whether they are to take it as stipulated that Libby did say that to the FBI on either October 14 or Nov. 26. I didn’t hear the trial testimony, obviously, but it does seem odd that the prosecution wasn’t sure on which date this statement was made. That makes it seem like a pretty dodgy charge to me.
scotter is going down faster than jeff gannon / gukert in turd blossom’s office . . .
Why is it every time Fitzgerald says “hi” I have food in my mouth?
Scout Finch @ 3
Well, here’s what we been speculatin’ at the EPU’d end of the last thread:
Woodhall Hollow @ 153
Blue Dido @ 6
Juries take as long as they take. It’s nerve-wracking for onlookers and the defendant, but it’s no picnic-in-the-park for the jurors, either.
BC
Hmm. I think they’re thinking too hard. The count says that X told the FBI a false statement. You don’t have to ask if the count is that he told it, or that the statement is false - it’s both, fer chrissake. If he hadn’t told it…
Anyway.
Jane Hamsher @ 12
So he won’t think you’re, like, totally crushed out?
It does look good for the prosecution. If the jurors are only now considering the Cooper false statement charge, they probably addressed the other charges first. Marcy is right; this count is the one most likely to fall.
OTOH, it doesn’t speak well of the jury that they’re still confused over whether Libby is charged with lying to Cooper and telling the truth about that to the FBI or telling the truth to the FBI about lying to Cooper.
Thank you so much for clarification. I’ve got my fingers crossed.
JGabriel @ 13
“falsely told” should clue them in that it is content not whether or not the statement was made
Jane Hamsher @
12
Fitz said hi? When, where, how many times?
From the last thread:
About Cheney’s pet “senior official“: Is it Rummy?
I am with Walton…what the heck was the jury asking?
For all the latest Libby trial news, legal documents, timelines and other essential materials surrounding the Bush administration’s outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame and its politics of payback against Joseph Wilson, see:
“The CIA Leak/PlameGate Resource Center.”
So the jury didn’t know if the charge is that Libby lied to the FBI about whether he made the statement to Cooper, or if the content of the statement was a lie? Are they over-thinking, much?
FWIW: CNN just had an update on this. Their reporter indicated that it seemed the question the jurors was asking appeared to be whether Count 3 says that Scooter lied in testimony about the content of his conversation with Cooper, OR that Scooter lied in saying no conversation ever existed between Cooper & Scooter that day.
Marcy called it yesterday, speculating it had to do with the Cooper charge.
karelroc @ 22
I read it as a bit of the jury getting tangled up in Libby’s lies. Are they supposed to convict him for lying to Cooper or for lying to the FBI about what he said to cooper.
As litigatormom pointed out, it is not against the law to lie per se, but it is against the law to lie to the FBI. Hopefully the jury has figured this out.
Jane Hamsher @
12
OMG, he is teh into you! Totlally !!!11!!!!
karelroc @ 22
For some reason, this sounds to me like one person might have been confused and no one was able to talk them out of their confusion, but then suddenly a light bulb went on. This has happened to me sometimes about stuff that everyone gets but me and then when I get it I have a doh moment. It usually does happen when I am being too literal or thinking too hard.
Jane, can you pass Fitz a note from me?
;-)
Thank God I’m unemployed right now, I would have had to quit my job to keep up with the fantastice work done here. FDL is the greatest. Thanks guys!
I don’t know if this is good for the prosecution or not. I am totally confused.
“This is good news for Bush”
This is pretty simple folks…
The question comes from the concept that Libby could have been lying to Cooper… protecting his source so to speak.
In other words, even if he had heard it from God himself… telling Cooper that he heard it from other reporters is not a crime. He can lie all day long to reporters.
The jury is likely weighing the feasiblity that Libby certainly could have told Cooper that he heard it from other reporters… whether or not it was actually true.
This would suggest that they are leaning towards aquittal on these charges…. but doesn’t really tell us anything about the rest.
I don’t know about you guys, but I think the instructions to the jury are poorly worded. Who writes this stuff? The Judge?
EPU’d below: Are all of Libby’s lawyers on the clock while sitting around during deliberations? Don’t think I’d want to pay for all 11. I’ve only got two hands to hold and I’m not letting them hold anything else no matter how much I’m paying.
superfly at 28 — No more caffeine for you.
These notes are usually sent to resolve an impass in deliberations. Typically part of the jury has taken one position, part has taken the other, and after a while they realize that part of their disagreement is due to differing interpretations of the instructions.
Often just the act of drafting the question triggers thought processes that help resolve the impass.
While we can’t divine the verdict from this question (sometimes the jury direction is very clear from such questions, other times not) it does seem that they are discussing the charges and evidence in fine detail. This is probably a good sign for the prosecution, but not necessarily.
Jane / Marcy, are you gonna make it w/ notebooks today, or do you need an intervention. Lunchhour is here and I need to make a decision.
Jane an’ Fitzie, sittin’ inna tree…
I think the jury was asking whether Libby was wondering if “I don’t know if that was true” referred to “journalists were telling this to the administration” or “she worked for the CIA.”
If the former, he knew journalists weren’t telling the administration anything that didn’t originate with him, Rove, Armitage or the WHIG, and if the latter, he was told by Cheney she worked for the CIA, so he knew that, as well.
It doesn’t matter. Fitz established how many conversations were going on about Plame.
Jane Hamsher @ 12
Okay Jane, once again: leave the guns, take the canolli, but when in the courthouse, the rule is:
Leave the food, take the cell phone, the wallet, Marcy’s power cord and . . . uh . . . whatever else you forgot. ;)
tommy yum @ 16
That is kind alike when you are eating at a restaurant and your mouth is full and the wait person asks how is everything and you can’t say a thing. Never fails!
scarecrow @ 40
And get one of those chains to keep your glasses on. ;-)
I think that it’s unclear about the statement being made because there is an “or”. All of the other counts I assume are more specific about the timing of the false statements (is that true?). They first have to determine if the statement is made and then if it was false. The jury reversed that and thought it was obvious that Libby lied and then got stuck on whether they could automatically assume the statement was made as reported by the prosecution (because of the or). Libby is toast.
dude at 34 — They come directly out of case law precedents, pulled from prior cases which are applicable to the particular elements of the charge. The judge and counsel on both sides work on drafting, but they are required to follow precedent for them.
One quick note. If I’m not mistaken, the timing of the jury’s note this morning (9:45 a.m.) indicates that they got clarity on their own without any input from the judge or the parties.
I take it the answer to the question, which frankly seems pretty confused, is, roughly, the charge is that Libby made the statement to the FBI, the statement was false - in the sense that Libby did not in fact tell Cooper that reporters were telling the administration etc. (regardless of whether in fact the reporters were doing so etc) - and Libby knew it was false.
Actually it seems like an intelligent question to ask. They are asking, is the charge that the FBI ask,
“Did you ask the following of Matt Cooper…..” and Libby said no, he never had any such conversation with Matt Cooper.
Or
Did the FBI ask,
“Did you ask Matt Cooper the following…” and Libby said, no the question was like that, but it was actually something else.
My guess is that the jury believes that Libby is not guilty of the first but guilty of the second based on transcripts. But the charge is worded so it can be interpreted as either the first or the second.
By the way, the “We know what we have to do” comment suggests, from a pscyhological perspective, that they are close to finding Libby guilty. You only use that type of phrase usually if you are going to do something proactive. It is an active phrase to describe activity, no a passive on.
This is a very careful jury and we should be happy about that.
Jane Hamsher @
12
Now you know the Fitz Summoning Technique: Have a bag of Doritos nearby at all times!
conniptionfit @ 24
Perhaps, but law and jury duty are forums that require semantic analysis, some might say over-analysis.
I suspect this is better than under-thinking the charges.
I think the question made sense.
If the charge is I falsely told the FBI that “I told Marcy that Jane is fabulous.”
It would be easy to get hung up on whether Jane is fabulous (of course she is) when the question for the jury is whether I actually said that to Marcy.
Apparently, they figured that out.
Jane Hamsher @
12
*swooning*
Has anyone recently mentioned that the FDL Donation Button deserves to be clicked? See the upper right corner of the homepage. Paypal or credit cards can be used. I imagine FDLs costs for providing this groundbreaking coverage must be staggering. Give whatcha can to the good people at FDL!
‘…Page 74 of the jur instructions,…’
Thats a lot of pages - not a good look is it?
‘…”Count three of the indictmentn alleges that Mr. Libby falsely told the FBI on October 14 or November 26, 2003,..’
Hope thats the Jury not sure of the date there and not the FBI! Again, not a real good look.
‘…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 of this was true. (i.e., is the charge that the statement was made or about theh content of the statement itself)…’
What needs clarifying is that if you honestly believe the defendant conveyed information to Matt Cooper that the defendent then wilfully and knowingly and criminally lied to the FBI about then its up to you to decide on an up-or-down vote on that particular charge.
I think - IANAL
If they are going through the counts sequentially, this means we still have a bunch of deliberation time left.
If they are doing it in the order of “we agree he’s guilty on all of the counts except this last one (#3)” we may be closer. The fact that they are bringin up a question on the count that is closest to being an acquital count (after this many days of deliberation) would seem to be good news for the prosecution (as to guilty counts being returned on the others considered before).
The fact that they are not dressed up would seem to indicate that they don’t think they will be finished today.
watertiger @ 42
We may need to take up a collection of chains.
superfly @ 28
Damn. I don’t stand a chance against Fitz.
The “or” issue:
I think, and I could be wrong, this is to charge that Scooter lied to the FBI about the same Cooper conversation on both dates, but the jury can find him guilty of lying on either, both, or neither date.
Jane Hamsher @
12
He’s shy, and doesn’t want to feel like he’s forcing you into a long conversation.
Go ahead, and make it easy on the big guy. Offer him a chair, and share your food.
EPU’d from last thread:
Biodun @ 176
I agree this would seem to bode well for the prosecution. If they are thinking that hard about count #3 It would seem to imply at the very least they are considering whether Libby was misleading the FBI when talking about the Cooper conversation. It seeme to me if that is the case the Russert charge is a lock. But maybe I am being too hopeful.
Christy at 44
If it is pulled from precedent, how is it “pulled”—I mean, is this a case of cut-n-paste editing of case-decisions? Not a lawyer, so it’s an innocent but highly critical (of the process) question.
I would swoonJane Hamsher @ 12
.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 36
Just being silly (though it wouldn’t surprise me)
Thanks for to all for all your work.
Peterr @ 57
Oh, and make sure you do a quick swipe of the teeth before you talk. Nothing like having a piece of your snack on your front teeth while chatting.
DP @ 58
Well I guess
Vickywe can rule out the possibility of jury nullification,Gromit @ 36
Most likely. But some of them are also probably reading, researching, or taking phone calls with respect to other cases.
Welcome to the profitable world of double-billing.
> I don’t know if this is good for the
> prosecution or not. I am totally confused.
IIRC it was the Martha Stewart case where the jury sent out a question that, according to legal analysts, cut right to the heart of a question of legal scholarship that has remained unsolved for at least 100 years. Hours and hours of cable-news and talk blathering were generated by this note as a result.
Afterwords, when interviewed by a reporter one of the jurors said “we just didn’t understand the definition of this word”.
So I wouldn’t overanalyze…
Cranky
Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! Four out of five isn’t bad. So then Libby would be facing what? Twenty five years? Plenty of time to write in prison, huh Scooter? Or maybe just tell the truth and get a book deal along with a year in Club Fed to write it. And maybe take these guys down and save the world. Today is hump day, let’s get this thing over with.
JGabriel@48- Yeah, they are overthinking. The charge is that Libby’s statement to to FBI was a lie, not that what he said to Cooper was untrue. It’s not illegal to lie to Cooper.
Poor Byron York, desperately maintaning his cluelessness when necessary for that filthy lucre:
Libby Update 3 [Byron York]
We know what the jury’s question was, and it’s as confusing as much of this case has been. This is the question:
‘OTOH, it doesn’t speak well of the jury that they’re still confused over whether Libby is charged with lying to Cooper and telling the truth about that to the FBI or telling the truth to the FBI about lying to Cooper’
If just one juror is confused, or even a couple, about the specifics of this charge, it shouldn’t come as a surprise. How many of us watching and listening in so closely fully understands these convoluted legaleze charges completely?
This sounds like someone on the jury simply wanted more clarification, and apparently wanted the judge’s version, not the foreman’s version, of what the charge was.
But before the judge could respond, the issue was cleared-up enough for that juror or jurors to proceed without the judge’s input…
Its easy for us to wonder at the jury’s confusion. We can quickly get the answers or learned opinions to these questions, here on this blog, from the many experts on board to guide us through the jargon.
But there are only 11 jurors, and they don’t have the benefit of access to this kind of expertise, so they must reach out of their jury room if they have questions.
If only they had Christy or Marcy handy to clear up these confusions… but that’s not how a jury works, huh?
Jane Hamsher @ 12
OMG did you feel 16 again for a moment and the cutest guy in school just said hi to you?
He likes you Jane! We can tell. He could have said hi to anyone in the room but he said hi to you!
Do prosecuters throw an iffy charge in sometimes to let the jury alleviate feeling of badness for convicting on other charges?
It STILL comes down to “It’s not illegal to lie to Cooper”!
dude at 61 — Prety much. The langauge of the instructionhas to closely track the language of the case law precedent in order to avoid raising an appealable issue. That’s a good thing if it is a well-worded opinion, but not so good if it’s poorly worded. FWIW, there are all sorts of books put together with model jury instructions, so most of them get refined over time, both by attorneys working the cases and by the judges who decide the issues in trial and also on appeal. It’s fluid, just not quickly so. Does that help?
superfly @
28
What guy wouldn’t? ;-)
George Soros buys Haliburton?
Um?
74 pages of instructions gets you only to the third count? No wonder this is taking so long.
FROM wONKETTE:
‘Politico ed John Harris cops to being the guy responsible for “slow bleed,” the term that’s killed John Murtha’s Iraq-ending plan dead. He’s so guilty about it he wrote a couple hundred words noting how quickly it spread and how now everyone’s using it look at all the Nexis hits and oh woe is he he surely wouldn’t do that again!’
is it just me or do most people think Politico.com is all but worthless?
Pat_AlexVA @
39
This is Marcy.
I think we’ll be fine with one computer until later in the day–I’m saving the remaining 3 hours on my battery in case we get some fun late in the day.
And once I turn it on I’ll tell you all about my chat with Fitz.
Jeff @
47
Alternately, the jurors may be able to convict on the charge on the basis that Libby was testifying to the FBI and GJ that he heard it from reporters.
That would take the onus off of Cooper’s credibility.
In other words, whatever Cooper remembers, it’s clear that Libby did not hear about Plame from the reporters ‘as if for the first time’.
The problem with Count Three is that includes the lie about hearing from reporters, but not the lie about hearing it ‘as if for the first time’.
That’s why I, and I think others, believe this to be the charge Libby’s most likely to beat.
OTOH, if they have already come to a conclusion on the other charges, then (IMHO) they are more likely to convict on Count Three, because taken in hand with the other charges Libby seems far more likely to be lying than not.
It means they haven’t had the confusion in determining whether Libby lied to Russert when he allegedly said he was surprised when he learned about Plame.
Minor modification here: Libby didn’t tell the FBI he told Russert anything in response to Russert’s purported statement about Plame. Libby told the FBI he experienced surprise, but not that he expressed it to Russert.
Phoenix Woman @ 49
And offer to share.
Jane Hamsher @
12
Um, dinner at 8? Dutch or Irish? I’d pitch in for that.
Wilbur @
47
I agree. Seems to me that if you were inclined towards non-guilty you would say “what we should do” whereas imposing a penalty is something most people do reluctantly because it is something that they “have to do.” That is certainly my own experience with juries.
A more simple explaination is that the wording simply means that “we have to” look at the charge (jury instructions) in a certain way.
Thanks for your take on this emptywheel! I’m a big fan. You’re bringing geek chic to this trial!
Bustednuckles @
26
I did? Cool! Since it worked so well this time, I think I’ll just speculate away that they’re going to come back with 4 guilty, one not guilty verdicts today.
At about 3:45, after my lunch meeting and at a time when I’ll have laptop power again.
Marcy– ooooh, you tease!
:O
I don’t understand. Libby is not charged with lying to Russert–even if he did, it would not be a crime. So why would the jury be trying to figure out if Libby lied to Russert?
Interested Observer @
54
Still Marcy here.
I agree entirely, that’s what I was trying to say above. If THIS is the only charge they havethis confusion with, it suggests there’s a good deal of clarity elsewhere.
Attaturk @ 70
“Who’s the dude in the media room with the Edwardian hairdo?”
Someone get Marcy a power cord fast! I can’t wait 3 hours to hear about her chat with Fitz. OMG!!!!
really… I need to study for an accounting test.. this is going to kill my GPA
Marcy - thanks for the clarification/insight upstairs. I think this sentence is missing a word, however:
I hope you all have a great lunchbreak, and we get a verdict this afternoon. Here’s hoping Jane can share a lunchtable with Fitz :)
Oh please wipe the smiles of the face of Wells and Scooter and friends. *eyes lifted upwards, praying*
Jane Hamsher @ 87
Okay, great, I can get some work done for the next 3 1/2 hours…
Yeah right, like I won’t be f5ing every 15 minutes for the rest of the day. ;-)
Shopgirlove @ 78
LOL - I thought you meant he bought a controlling interest!
Alternately, the jurors may be able to convict on the charge on the basis that Libby was testifying to the FBI and GJ that he heard it from reporters.
Not really, because by the time you get to July 12, Libby can claim he had heard from Novak via Rove even if he hadn’t heard from Russert, and that formed a basis for the purported statement to Cooper.
I suspect the jury finds it plausible that Libby could have heard from reporters, because numerous reporters indeed appear to have known by the time Libby spoke with Cooper. But I suspect they may be less clear on whether Libby did in fact make the statement to Cooper.
I also think they are just confused by all the nested statements involved: the alleged false statement is the one made to the FBI, but the statement is about a statement Libby made to Cooper on the basis of statements (according to Libby) reporters had made to him.
That may be one of the most awkward jury instructions I’ve seen. I am trying to imagine what I’d do if the good sister I had in grade school asked me to diagram it!
sentance line divide the verb is convict.noblejoanie @ 99
sentence line divide the verb is convict.
First, I want to say something about the Jury, the time they’re taking, and our patience. Unlike all us (who decided months ago that we know Libby is guilty of everything charged and more, with the entire Administration as unindicted co-conspirators, even Barney), they were picked to come at this completely fresh, with no foreknowledge. It is quite right that they should take their time in coming to a guilty verdict. ;)
More seriously, I am much encouraged by this question. As Marcy rightly points out, in the time the jury has had so far, they haven’t been confused by any of the charges as they were by this one, which they were smart enough to sort out by themselves (or we hope so, anyway).
As Marcy also says, this is the most “he said this, but he said that” charge, and if they aren’t already decided on Libby getting off on this one… then what of the other charges they’ve been deliberating on? Would it be easier for them to come to a conclusion on those, or harder? And which way?
I think we know.
It’s beginning to look a lot like the best Fitzmas ever.
i heart jane @ 11
Gannon advertised as a top. Just saying.
motherlowman @
21
The senior official is Cheney. The media uses the first person “I” when quoting the official.
“I came here….I am not heavy handed”……
-GSD
I thought we could use a giggle.
obsessed @ 96
upperleftedge @ 68
I think Scooter’s genre is in fiction.
Attaturk—actually I think the jury question was confusing.
watertiger—he changed his haircut. Much improved.
Probably I am only defending him because he liked my shoes.
Shopgirlove @ 78
I like to think of it as making Halliburton an unwitting Robin Hood.
Rationalization is a wonderful thing.
ohioblue @ 92
He he he. Pretty mean of me.
It was a very nice conversation. But I have to confess to being wrong. Fitzgerald and I don’t share a rugby coach in our past.
I thobsessed @ 97
I thought that’s what was meant also…
Soros knows very well how to make money, and knows that with this administration still in charge Halliburton is a good bet.
I’m quite the liberal, but still base my investing (as a whole) on stocks or commodities that will hopefully turn into more $$$.
Back to the real topic…this jury is killing me.
Shopgirlove @ 104
If Soros dumps his shares all at once, what would happen to Halliburton?
Pissed in NYC @ 103