Feb 28 2007
Hint On Libby Deliberations
An interesting glimpse into the Libby trial deliberations has come out as the essence of the jury’s aborted question to Judge Walton has been made public:
Jurors seemed to want to know whether the charge hinges on whether Libby’s version of the conversation is true or whether what he told Cooper was true. As Walton and attorneys tried to parse that question, jurors apparently resolved it for themselves.
Clearly the answer is the first case, partially. What is at the heart of the charge is what Libby told the FBI. Whether Libby told Cooper a lie or his best belief is irrelevant. But even more so, it is simply a question of whether Libby believed what he said, not whether what he said was accurate. Hopefully the jury got it right. But clearly they are a bit lost, if just for a moment. The longer this goes on the more I think the jury will hang. But I may be wrong, it could simply be they are being thorough. I would think the guilty verdict would come easily.
It isn’t so much if it was true as it is if Libby *believed* it was true at the time. It is only perjury if the intention is to deceive the grand jury. If it is a misrecallection or confusion, then it is not perjury. If Libby knew in his mind that it was untrue and he intentionally told the grand jury something that he knew to be untrue, only then would it be perjury.
I find this to be a little disturbing that they are this stuck on something that seems so simple. The only evidence on the Matt Cooper charge, (which is what this question was about), was what Matt Cooper remembered vice what Scooter Libby remembered and they varied very slightly. Cooper even contradicted his own self in his testimony. So I can’t see how the jury would even be spending much time considering this charge let alone asking such a stupid question. They were actually asking the judge if he was being charged with lying to Cooper! That is just bizarre.
I started to wonder about this jury when I heard about the Valentines day thing. You are a member of a jury where a senior member of the administration is on trial for what could be the rest of his life and you take is so unseriously as to come to court with matching red t-shirts on saying “Happy Valentines Day”. If I were Libby and saw that, I would be pushing my lawyers to start working on the appeal already because these are eleven (the one juror who would not wear the shirt was the one dismissed) people who were not taking this trial very seriously and were enjoying the limelight. That is not a good thing for Libby. To me that means these people are most likely liberals.
You can throw all of your reasoning and logic right out the door, none of that means anything to liberals, they will convict because he is who he is. I was hoping I was wrong about the jury before, now I’m starting to lose what little hope I had that they would act like intelligent serious adults and do the right thing.
Libby’s lawyers helped pick ’em.
At last, AJ, we can agree on something – the guilty verdict should come easily.
soothsayer:
In DC about 90% of the registered voters are Democrats. That does not mean they are liberal, but it does make one wonder about the jury pool.
I wonder why Wilson gets away with lying? I guess for the same reason that Sandy Berger gets away with stealing and destroying classified information. When you got a D behind your name, you can get away with a lot more.
No, it should NOT come easily.
It would come easily.
Big difference.
1. What – specifically – are the lies you refer to?
2. Did he utter such lies to Federal investigators?
3. Did he utter such lies under oath to a Grand Jury?
Keep in mind with respect to the jury pool – thru Ted Wells dishonest misrepresentations that Mr. Cheney would be testifying – for some unknown reason, Judge Walton agreed to bump potential jurors who didn’t like the Vice President – which accounts for about 90% of all Americans.
Walton realizes he’s been had, and if there is a hung jury and a re-trial, you can bet that the Cheney Factor will not be used to determine potenital jurors the second time around.
sooth’s in the dark about SCCI’s
findings on Wilson’s trip.
not surprised.
sooth’s in the dark about SCCI’s findings on Wilson’s trip.
It must not have been in the talking points he received. Soothie just reminds me sometimes of a “seminar” blogger.
Wells just wanted to add Cheney to the list. That’s all. Why should Walton be had?
No, it’s not 90% of the American Public that hate Cheney.
Soot, I wouldn’t think Wells had much to pick from for a jury pool. This is after all the same place that elected Marion Barry twice. The same place where the congress had to take over the city government because is was so incompetent.
As for Joe Wilsons lies, did you forget he went before the Senate and told a commitee that he was sent to Niger to debunk a document that didn’t exist until several months after he was back? Congress so much as called him a liar. He also lied to congress as to whether his wife did or did not have any part of sending him on that trip, which was subsequently proven with her own email suggesting sending him. Yeah, Wilson has had a few fibs up his sleeve.
Would point out that those findings in the SCCI were ramrodded by Pat Roberts et alii and not affirmed by the Minority on the committee.
If you have a complaint about Wilson not being held to task for his lies, take it up with the friggin’ Department of Justice and Alberto Gonzales – Georgie’s hand-picked Texicano AG – as Speedy could order a US Attorney to have Wilson indicted tomorrow if he had the stones – which he doesn’t – to do it.
If you can find another instance where potential jurors opinion of a specific potential witness was cause for dismissal – let me know. I’m sure the attorneys representing the Johon Gottis of the world would love to be able to bounce any jurors who have a bad outlook on mobsters.
Walton was conned and he knows it. As for Cheney’s disapproval ratings – they’re at 82% – sorry for the minor exaggeration.
You make as much sense as Soot. (Which is none). By the way, have you seen your approval ratings? They make Dick Cheneys look like Mother Theresa’s.
Trouble with “true believers.” They can’t get away from their faith, to grasp the simple idea of Reasonable Doubt.
As to the DC players; where you’ve already seen the incompetence of their mayor. The DC police in not even finding Chandra Levy’s body, when it was in plain view, later, to a hiker. Just let’s ya scratch your haed and wonder; “what else has affirmative action wrought?”
Walton? Totally innept. Is his excuse that blacks never met white people who could do their jobs, well? Is that it?
Will the appeals process add something to this horrible mess? Or is the “love” of judicial discretion” so great that there are no brakes on insanity. We can expect things to get much worse?
How far does “much worse” go, if what you are losing is respect for the system?
We can out-source our automobile industry. As a matter of fact, we have.
But how do you out-source the ideas that once rested on the bedrock of our US Constitution?
We might as well have gone straight to africa and imported clowns as dumb and blind as waltoon. What do we need? Darfur in our streets? Because these people are too stupid to care for one another?
The whole thing is a farce. And, will go down in history as one of the lamest jokes ever told.
On the other hand? This is the left’s religion. Why not let them fail at it? They’re sure all other religions have also left people cold.
Shows ya, though, that too much faith shuts the door on reasonable doubt.
And, if you can’t count on a dozen people coming to terms with reasonable doubt? Then let’s see how much respect they garner, ahead.
ONE: PEOPLE ARE TUNED OUT.
TWO: THEIR FANCY DRESS COSTUMES, they’ll wear to court when their decision is read alloud, won’t give them a lingering test of fame being terrific. Any more than it did to the OJ jurors. Might as well have seated 12 monkeys. Cheaper, too. Since all you have to feed them are bananas. But just make sure they’re diapered.)
Fancy Dress? Did you go to W&L, Carol?
🙂
Good post, btw.
Ivehadit, what’s a W&L? Is it some sort of sandwich?
I’m 67 years old, by the way. And, fancy dress was something kids put on to go to church and shul. (Heck, I can even remember by patent leather shoes. With a fancy strap to close them by.) And, I wasn’t allowed lipstick or a shoe with heels, until I was well into my teens.
Does the idea that “fancy dress” no longer exists, prevail? If so, how do you explain the Fire Dog Lake people commenting that the jurors were in jeans for jury deliberations. But “go to court” in business suits.
Is it possible some people think “fancy dress” is tuxedo and black tie? Oy.
Let alone, how in the 1960’s there was a separation in evening wear and morning wear. I remember those penguin coats. With striped pants. And, many a bride all in a dither over what choices to make.
I even remember cocktail length bridal dresses. Be funny if one of the jurors wore one of those to court on verdict day. Who’d get the bouquet when she threw it? Now, wouldn’t that put waltoon off his game!
When the jurors came out in their red tee-shirts I thought these people are loons. I am still in a fog as to why this case was even brought to trial. Talk about a nothing. The only thing I can come up with is revenge. Libby bested Fitzgerald in the Rich case and this is payback. There can be no other explanation. The zeal with which this SP herded this case explains it all. He made Judith Miller pay for her transgressions also.
Of course, another explanation is another effort to get Bush and Cheney. Fitzgerald sort of tipped his hand in his rebuttal on this. But that might be a effort to tie Bush’s hands in the event of a pardon if Libby is found guilty. Which furthers the idea this is for revenge.
Fitzgerald has no problem lying to the court. He did so to Tatel’s court in the Judith Miller case. He lied to Judge Hogan’s court with Russert’s affidavit. And why did he give Armitage and Fleischer immunity. They were the only leakers. Fleischer leaked the INR and I’ll bet Fitzgerald gave him immunity for that if he would testify against Libby.
This case was never about Valerie Plame supposed outing. It was a ploy to see if they could bring down the President and the Vice President through trickery. The media as usual aided this meme all the way.
This whole case is a travesty of justice. The judge is incompetent, the prosecutor is unethical and the jury is stupid. What kind of verdict can be expected. Thank goodness for appeals. The law was broken so many times in this trial an appeal is a slam dunk. Maybe we can get some adults to judge this thing then.
I know what you’re talking about Carol and I agree with you. The day they come to court dressed up is the day they will deliver a verdict. I can’t imagine grown adults going to court in jeans and
t-shirts jury or not. It is clear that they are really eating up their fifteen minutes and they will most likely continue to do so after the trial is over. That’s why I think they are going to convict on at least one count. No mature adult would act this, only liberals.
If these bozos are confused it’s because the facts don’t jive with a real legal violation here. The judge has been an absolute jackass. How can you possible have this trial without getting into the actual classified status of Valerie Plame? What a crock!
Barbie-doll – your ignorance of the law is both obvious and bathetic. What, pray tell, will the grounds be for the appeals you envision?
You might want to check the track record of criminals convicted by Fitzgerald winning on appeal. I believe you’ll find it to be under 2%.
Sooth spun
Keep in mind with respect to the jury pool – thru Ted Wells dishonest misrepresentations that Mr. Cheney would be testifying – for some unknown reason, Judge Walton agreed to bump potential jurors who didn’t like the Vice President – which accounts for about 90% of all Americans.
Walton realizes he’s been had, and if there is a hung jury and a re-trial, you can bet that the Cheney Factor will not be used to determine potenital jurors the second time around.
Well Cheney could have testified depending on the strength and direction of the prosecutors case.
Wells had no way to know in advance that the prosecution would put on such a house of cards of poor and differing recall witnesses and seemingly failed to show intent or materiality of perjury charges.