Login Here 
*UPDATE: We are now hearing that Walton may have been engaging in hypotheticals and there is no indication from the note that the jury has reached a finding of fact, but it's hard to know because we were listening to them argue about something we hadn't seen. More as we know it.
It was my impression in the courtroom (and MSNBC confirms, based on courthouse sources) that there are three new separate questions, all about Count 3, the Cooper false statement charge.
At one point, I believe Walton said (and others who heard it confirm that this was their impression as well) that the jury has reached a unanimous decision regarding the fact that Libby lied.* Walton had issued some instruction, however, that they need to decide that he lied on October 14th and November 26th dates (both FBI interviews), but now says he should have used the word "or" instead of "and" -- i.e., if the jury all agrees that Libby lied on either of these dates, they have reached a unanimous guilty verdict. (The indictment itself says "and.")
However, there seems to be some confusion -- do they all agree on one date, or do some agree on one and not the other? Thus the defense and prosecution are arguing about language to use before they present it to the judge.
We only got 5 minutes warning about the hearing. I was standing at the door to the court when the prosecution came barelling down the hall. I pulled open the door and just stood back. In retrospect, I think they knew when they got the question that they had him.
I watched Scooter throughout the proceeding. No smiles now. He seems to have moved off into appeal land. Mrs. Libby was not in the courtroom, but was standing outside the overflow courtroom when we came out into the hall.
We won't know the contents of the questions until tomorrow, but we'll be back in the courtroom at 9:30 am. Looks like we might be getting close.
Share This 
Spotlight
Wow.
FITZ!!!
Damn.
Giulty! Guilty! Guilty!
FITZ
Fitz!
Give truth back
Yes… give truth BACK!!!
Holy Balls Batman!
Time to indict Spiro.
Just Gimme Some Truth.
Nail his ass!
That’s quite an image, Jane. It’d had better make it to the final cut of the movie.
Now it’s Cheney’s turn!
Thanks Jane! I love this post!
“I pulled open the door and just stood back.” Something the defendant is thinking.
Jane, when you say “the jury has reached a unanimous decision regarding the fact that Libby lied”, do you mean that they have reached a unanimous decision that he did lie, or just that they have reached a decision on whether he lied? Thanks!
Do we dare believe?
looking good, can’t wait to hear the foreman say “Guilty”, though…
It’s like Braxton-Hicks contractions during the last week of pregnancy.
Lot’s of false alarms
Here’s hoping, Wilsons!
looseheadprop @
19
Good analogy LHP! Hopefully, Scooter’s water broke today…
Ambassador and Mrs. Wilson, sleep well tonight. Tomorrow may be a busy day.
And that goes double for Marcy and Jane. We long distance types need you top form!
pseudonymous in nc @
12
The tall man in the rumpled suit, former rugger that he is, led the pack of lawyers down the hall. He was smiling as he ran . . .
Could this really be the end? Or a new beginning, I guess.
looseheadprop @
19
Hahahahahaha!
It is worth remembering that braxton-hicks are a good indication of what is to come….
Libby is canned as in spam!
*xyz @ 16
Thankfully, it amounts to the same thing. If they’re arguing about dates, they must be unanimous as to his having lied, and disagree about the dates on which he did so. (Most probably, they’re unanimous on one date and not on the other, and want to know if that’s good enough - but that’s just speculation, and based on Walton’s response, they didn’t spell that out in the note.) And Wells is losing his argument on this point - he wants Walton to be extremely conservative in his instruction on this point, but Walton wants to push the jury to be clear that they’ve actually reached unanimity on one particular day, even if they’re *only* unanimous about that day and still disagree about the other. His main concern is that the conviction can’t be reversed on the grounds that the jury never reached a unanimous finding of fact - and that tells us the note indicated a conviction on that count.
pseudonymous in nc @
12
It was like a stampeding herd of cattle. I heard then coming behind me and just pulled open the door, it was the easiest way to get out of the way. I mean they were thundering.
When I heard what Walton said I tugged at my ear, I couldn’t believe it and came down to the media room right after we adjourned to check it with others. Marcy hadn’t heard it (that’s why you need two people here — one hears things the other doesn’t, one will get distracted at a moment when the other is paying attention, it’s happened before — we compare notes). But several others say they heard it and wrote it down.
Ah Twisted M, my friend. Don’t you just feel like an expectant first time grandparent?
Your not giving birth, but someone you love is and ll you can do is wait axiously and jump at every sign and portent.
If Scooter is found guilty, will you then believe that Balrogs ski?
*xyz @ 17
if they are asking questions about count three, it means they’ve found him guilty of count five.
I am greatly relieved, but I got twinge which told me that the verdict, when it comes, will be emotional. Thanks, Jane, glad to get the warning.
Here comes Patty Fitz!
Here comes Patty Fitz!
Right down Prettyman Lane!
Zeidie and Kathie and all his reindeer
are pulling on the reins.
Bells are ringing, children singing;
All is merry and bright.
Hang your stockings and say your prayers,
‘Cause Patty Fitz comes tonight!
Goodness. Please let there be a verdict tomorrow. I have a life to lead!
I still want Gilbert Gottlieb to play Judith Miller in the movie.
What if Raw Story or somebody puts up a headline that says Guilty! without a question mark before the verdict is in. What would that do? Could that create a mistrial?
Does anyone think that the 2 teams will be negotiating a plea tonight?
looseheadprop @
23
Seconded. All.
I take it there was nothing improper about Walton commenting on the jury having reached a verdict on some count? I was surprised to read that.
looseheadprop @ 19
Or, perhaps, we’ve just got some very extended labor pains . . . “No, don’t give me any drugs, don’t use the forceps, don’t schedule a c-section — I’m doing this the natural way, and it’s just gonna take time. Back the &%^$ off!”
Although, in fairness, my friend who talked like this in delivery gave in after 40 hours, and asked for the drugs. Kid came popping right out.
Balrog @ 29
On fire or on ice?
Ohioblue @
25
Nah, Dylan songs never end, I’m just stuck inside of Mobile with the Memphis blues again.
I sure hope (Queen) Jane (Approximately) heard what she thinks she heard!
Just a WAF (wild-ass fantasy) here, but: Fitz goes outside to give his little spiel to the press after the “guilty on all counts” verdict - everybody thinks he’s done when suddenly he pulls “Sealed vs. Sealed” out of his pocket and announces the indictment of Darth Cheney and the whole WHIG on conspiracy and whatever else.
Be still my heart….
I think you may be right. And the way I understand the instruction and the charge, they only have to find one. As long as they are all unanimous on which one, they only need one false statement. That’s why each of Fitz’s counts had more than one.. There was redundancy built into each count.
You gotta love a belt and suspenders man!
Fitz!
Madness, Madness, MADNESS!
spinoza @ 34
THAT would be PERFECT
So Jane are you going into verdict mode again with your wardrobe? Or will you follow Peanut’s lead and dress as a stegosaurus?
did someone say something about dead eye dick having medical problems today…have the asspawns turned????
Peterr @ 39
That is a perfect description of my labor with my daughter. But she came popping out at 3 hours with no drugs or foreceps. That was 31 years ago, and she still does things in her own way and in her own time.
looseheadprop @ 43
And to think that some of the jury’s delay might have been their efforts to reach consensus on all of the incidents mentioned in count 3… when they only needed one.
who needs fiction when the truth is so exciting! thank you Jane. i felt like i was there.
i heart jane @ 49
he had a blood clot in his leg, treated and is back at work
Peterr @ 39
I had less than 2 hours of labor. HAd somthing called an explosive birth.Littleprop was a human cannon ball. Literally shot out of me.
You KNOW that Tom Cruise will play Fitz in the movie, and Travolta will be Wells or Jeffress.
Maybe Denzel will play judge Walton…..
Hommina, hommina, hommina…
Get ready to hear the dirty fucking hippies crow ’til the cows come home! While the wingnuts once more curse into their Schlitz and lament yet again how the sexual revolution passed them by.
Oh, and Valerie Plame’s status WAS classified, so there!
hackworth @ 36
Only if one (or more)of the jury disobeys Walton’s instructions. They’re supposed to abstain from media contact, including news sites, while reaching a decision.
Marcy, Jane, Pach,
Thank you so much for covering this trial. This is an amazing amount of work.
Reminds me to add my tiny ‘mite’ of a donation to the site and help out.
Guilty.
Let it be so. And then…onward and upward!
I am so grateful (and truly amazed) that an honest non-pandering attorney was appointed as special prosecutor. Bushco has gamed the entire system through corrupt sycophants for six years. Who chose Fitz to serve? (Ashcroft?).
I remember when he was appointed and reading the blogs who were saying all sorts of great things about Fitz being full of integrity (and grit). And it all appears to be true.
How could Bushco have EVER allowed someone of hte high calibre as Fitz to touch this case? Like it’s some sort of MAJOR miracle.
Wil @ 53
thanx *il — i am relieved!
I’m going to go home and sacrifice a goat….
*xyz @ 50
You know, You may be right. That would explain a lot
I hope Libby is found guilty. Not because of Libby. The feeling here is there are larger questions involved, than the fate of this samll time go-fur, Libby.
The draft jury instructions use the word “or” between the FBI interview dates.
The draft jury instructions use the word “and” between the two Grand Jury dates.
I’m strongly inclined to look to the draft jury instructions, rather than the indictment, as a device to predict which counts the jury is asking about.
Important note on the front page:
UPDATE: We are now hearing that Walton may have been engaging in hypotheticals and there is no indication from the note that the jury has reached a finding of fact, but it’s hard to know because we were listening to them argue about something we hadn’t seen. More as we know it
RadRobin @ 59
They (according to their own corrupt view of the world) blew it, which is likely why the timing of the firing of 8 US attorneys is no coincidence.
Marky @ 55
i heart jane @ 61
as is Exon/Mobile/BP/et al
UPDATE: We are now hearing that Walton may have been engaging in hypotheticals and there is no indication from the note that the jury has reached a finding of fact, but it’s hard to know because we were listening to them argue about something we hadn’t seen. More as we know it.
Woodhall Hollow @
26
But he wasn’t charged with violating the CAN-SPAM Act. *g*
That’s a really great paragraph Jane. As stated above, it should definitely be in the movie.
everhopeful @ 43
Let me continue that Fantasy. Libby — facing 10 years in federal lock up — makes a deal for less time by spilling ALL the beans about Cheney’s crimes. And finds important documents towit.
Oklahoma kiddo @
64
I hope he is found guilty because he is guilty.
He is guilty, isn’t he?
It ain’t shiny today, folks, but it’s new from egr blog.
All about obstacles, from court to that life beyond the court that we occasionally think about.
“…what a looooong, strange trip it’s been.”
was she stiking her pose?
looseheadprop @ 20
Wasn’t Braxton-Hicks the company Valerie Plame worked for?
Jane Hamsher @ 69
my guess is that Walton is drawing the same conclusions from the questions that everyone else is — and that is the basis of his “hypothesis”….
Hugh @ 78
That was Higgs-Boson.
Deb Moore @ 75
Yeah but soon we shall be able to cash in our chips!
Bush and Cheney are basic hoodlums. Hopefully Libby will be the key that ‘locks them up’.
Totally EPU’d from last thread:
Not to be a wet blanket, but ignore jury notes and questions, even these that sound promising. I’m sure Christy will agree, you never really know what’s on their minds till the verdict comes back.
Deep breaths every one.
Also we have not seen the actual notes.
Got EPU’d. THIS IS A SIGNAL FOR LIBBY TO PLEA BARGAIN AND TURN STATE’S EVIDENCE!
looseheadprop @ 54
When my brother was an intern in the ’70s, he was present at one of those births. Doctor dropped the baby, and my brother ended up testifying at the malpractice hearing. (I don’t actually know if it turned out to be malpractice in that trial.)
emptywheel @ 86
I absolutely heard Walton say it, so did several others (who went and asked Randall Samborn about it, who came down to the media room to clarify). Two other reporters wrote it down as well. It may have been a hypothesis, but if so he was assuming people could figure that out from knowing what the questions were, which we didn’t. He didn’t spell out that it was a hypothesis.
I do like the image of the prosecution “barreling down the hall.”
The rugby player boy in Fitz.
Balrog @ 73
I think so. But that and twenty cents won’t even but a pack of gum. ;0)
pseudonymous in nc @ 13
Tsunami time!
RadRobin @
60
James Comey, who is cut from the same cloth as Patrick Fitzgerald, was the Acting Attorney General while Ashcroft was in the hospital recuperating from surgery. He appointed Fitz and gave him plenary powers to follow the trail until it ends.
Without Comey this trial never would have happened.
mrs libby’s nose seems to be too short, maybe from an over zealous plastic surgeon. its a shame all that lying her hubby did couldn’t grow her nose a bit longer.
smapdi @ 80
Brewster-Jennings.
Pay no mind, I hit submit before I could do teh Google.
Wood Hollow at 67″
Yep. Hubris is their primary trait, and will definitely be their downfall. On everything.
Enough with the dueling labor experiences, please.
many thanx to both notta flatlander & pow wow (2 threads back) re: finding jury info here at fdl - my head is swimming from all i was able to dig up.
after a good night’s sleep am hoping to write up a condensed informative post of what i found
about the jury, due to the many wildly speculative posts of late.
based on what i’ve read so far about the types of ppl they are, (both as individuals & as a group - ie: the t-shirts), i believe they are intelligent, seriously minded, down to earth & ethical who want to cross their “T”s & dot their “I”’s while considering incarcerating someone. they know their work on this is historic. (i thought i read somewhere there is a lawyer among them. i need to substantiate that - but if true - it could explain a lot about why they are being so careful)
but in light of jane’s new post - perhaps this will be moot.
best ~
Marky @ 55
That would be like asking JC to play St John the Apostle.
Hrmph. The consequences of exposing the God Particle would be quite a bit more noticeable than those from exposing a CIA cover company.
Physics geeks, sheesh! But I’ll give you points for being geeky enough to bring it up.
Like a bunch of circling sharks …we are. Desperate for some truth and justice in regard to this bloody fucking war!
Mason at 90:
It was a miracle! We deserve to have had at least ONE miracle in this bushco mess.
LHP, no matter what happens I owe you a martini at yearly Kos!
Just another point militating against a need to find unanimity on “the date” as “the date” relates to Count 3 (or Count 2). To the best of my knowledge, all the evidence that would permit the jury to date discriminate as to which testimony was given at which FBI interview is Agent Bond’s testimony. In other words, it would be difficult for the jury to date-discriminate with regard to the false statements charges.
Not that it matters much (it any at all) - if an instruction incorrectly says that Libby MUST have repeated the same lie on multiple dates (i.e., if he changes the lie, it isn’t the same lie), that misconception is going to be corrected in any event. And Libby has been quite consistent in the general thrust of his interviews and testimony - the only non-reporter source he had was Cheney, and that source is one he had forgotten by the time of his first FBI interview.
smapdi @
80
Heh. I suppose once anything gets a little geeky, as this case has certainly been, the particle physics puns can’t be far behind.
nicely wrought, Jane. Thanks!
Educated Plaintiff @ 95
Educated Plaintiff - Please avoid writing specifically about the makeup of the jury while they are still deliberating. It is really inappropriate and ill-advised to do so. Thank you for your consideration.
Wrong Tom for Fitz. He’s too short. And never would have been in Jesuit school. How about Mr. Hanks?
Notta Flatlander @
97
The company was Brewster-Jennings:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....ge=printer
I will go to sleep tonight hoping that the jurors will wake up and smell the cappuccino and finally delare GUILTY 5 TIMES!
Wouldn’t it be funny if they were proceeding through the charges in order and hadn’t gotten any farther than three? LOL!
Er, not funny actually.
I honestly don’t think that Scooter can get a plea agreement. This trial is to convict him as a liar. It impeaches him from serving as a defense witness for Cheney (therefore increasing the likelihood of a Cheney indictment). You can’t very well be sitting where Fitz is sitting (looking for truth) and get it from someone who will lie to protect their superiors. Even if he would turn and give Fitz some evidence, how can anyone believe it? If he would lie to save Cheney, would he not lie to save his own skin? Frankly, I don’t think Fitz needs anything from him that he hasn’t already gotten.
Tom Hanks will play Fitz…He will need 6 inch lifts on his shoes (at least)
Marky @
55
Tom Cruise - YUCK!
Let this be the first of many decisive legal victories against this treasonous criminal administration that has brought us to the edge of perdition!
Jane Hamsher @ 69
Thanks, Jane.
It may be helpful here to look back at Marcy’s liveblog:
“Walton: I don’t want to keep the jury waiting until tomorrow. The only other issue. I’ll let you all work on that to see if you can come up with something. But I do have an issue as I was trying to come up with some language, and I know that counsel had not requested unanimity instruction regarding this count. I think it may be a problem. I had “and’ between the two dates. Govt requested that it be changed to “or”. Jury doesn’t have to find that he falsely made the statement on both dates. But is there a unanimity issue WRT this count, in light of statements made on two different dates. I don’t think the defense suggested he said soemthing different on one day and the other. We’ve got to know that the jury is saying he made a false statement on one and the same date that’s alleged in the indictment. I don’t know if there’s a unaninimity issue or not. THe issue can’t be waived. We have to know that jury reaching unanimous verdict on one of the two dates or both.
Wells: I’d ask you give us time to reflect on it [really quiet]. We need to discuss among ourselves and with the client. It’s just too important.
Walton: There’s going to be a claim of plain error if we don’t know that there’s a false statement made on a particular date.”
The italicized portion is probably the piece that led some people to think he’d indicated that the jury was unanimous on this point. But I think he’s saying something more interesting and nuanced. He points out that at Fitz’s request, he changed the ‘and’ to an ‘or’, and now he’s worried about it. Fitz wanted to make sure that they could convict if they found a lie on either of the dates, but because no unanimity instruction was given on the count, it opened the door for some jurors to choose one date, some the other, and anounce that they were unanimous without ever really agreeing, thus allowing for “a claim of plain error.” He also says that he doesn’t “know whether there’s a unanimity issue or not,” his way of indicating that this is a concern that arose mostly from his own reading of the instructions while trying to answer the jury’s question, and not directly from the jury’s note.
What’s it all mean? Tough to say. Certainly, there’s less cause for euphoria than it initially appeared. And we won’t know for sure until they release the three notes. But it looks like the and/or is Walton’s doing, not the jury’s.
Tom Cruise is way too tiny to play Fitz, just like he was way too tiny to play Lestat. Sorry, Tom, sometimes size matters. Oh, and acting ability helps, too.
God. I turn on the news and who’s on? Hillary doing a phony southern accent.
Fitz needs to be played by Liam Neeson.
Fitz= Hugh Laurie. Tom Hanks is a little too laid-back for the role, imo.
Question for the law-talking guys and gals:
Can the two sides negotiate a plea agreement at this point in the trial? And if so, can Libby be flipped at this point?
If the answer is yes, I gotta run to the store for some champagne cause Pinot Grigio isn’t going to cut tonight.
Mason @ 90