Posted on 02/21/2007 6:17:53 AM PST by Bahbah
Judge Walton, at the end of yesterday's "festivities" culminating in the mental breakdown of the lead prosecutor, indicated that they would resume at 9:30 Eastern.
In anticipation of that, I am setting up this thread even though I don't as yet see any FDLers gathered in the court room.
This should wrap it up unless there are some unanticipated surprises.
Ping-a-ling.
It may be that they are doing nothing today but jury instructions, and there is nothing more boring.
If that is the case, this will be a very short thread.
Thanks...I am here.
Byron York, not unexpectedly, has some things to say about the case and yesterday's events:
"On a day that had been anticipated for quite a long time, both sides’ performances were uneven. Chief defender Ted Wells was erratic, sometimes appearing to defend his own honor more than his client’s, and sometimes brilliantly dismantling the credibility of key prosecution witnesses. For his part, Fitzgerald seemed overcaffeinated and overreaching, perhaps overwhelming the jury with the minutiae of the case. How their closing summations will play with jurors is anybody’s guess.
What became unmistakably clear, though, was Fitzgerald’s fundamental theory of the case. As much as the prosecutor talked about Libby’s alleged lies, it was obvious that Fitzgerald, on Tuesday as well as throughout the investigation, believed his chief target was — and perhaps still is — Dick Cheney."
The rest is here: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjZiMjQyY2RlMjM5YzY1ZTQ4M2JkZTMyZTVlMWYxYTM=
Good morning, sleuthie.
Good to see you.
Jeralyn Merritt on the Libby trial:
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. That lack of evidence presented must be held to work against the Government.
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.
More at the link: http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/02/bitter_recrimin_1.html
PING
And even if they were retired can they divulge such information?
Not only that, if they were retired how would they know Plame's official status? I'd like to know for sure if this Bozo was retired and when. If he wasn't retied he would have to had broken some kind of law wouldn't you think?
Sorry for all the questions but Larry Johnson sure has a lot of absolute assertions in that article with nothing to support what he says. The firedoglake article supports a lot of its "facts" on Larry Johnson's word.
I smell something is fishy
Good morning, ladies. :-)
Larry Johnson has no credibility whatever. If I recall correctly, he has carefully avoided actually using the word "covert", preferring the less specific "classified."
I would bet he is using it in the sense that everyone who works at the CIA has some sort of job classification.
He is also, I believe, a member of that weird group that calls itself something like VIPS, which is full of anti-semites.
That is just marvelous.
Ha, ha, ha. Great visuals!!! :-D
Good Morning my friends...
Anyone want to make bets on how long the jury is out??
Did Fitzfong really have a mini breakdown yesterday? I didn't have time to read anything.
Larry Johnson is one of the BIGGEST POSes you will EVER see!!
Too funny.
Did you take a class recently in photos and graphics? I love 'em!
I echo what Bahbah said about Larry Johnson...
You find the "6 degrees of Larry Johnson", and you will find so many anti-American, anti-Bushie...and other scum...you might need a shower after reading it...
There are dozens of threads on FR from past subjects that have Larry Johnson's dastardly actions all over them.
Indeed he did. One commenter at JOM said something like "so the trial ends, not with a bang or a wimper, but with a nervous breakdown." LOL.
Oh man....however I STILL think the jury will find him GUILTY (OF BEING A RICH WHITE MALE republican).
What happened with Fitz?
I'm afraid that may be exactly what happens.
He pretty much came unhinged and started yelling about the cloud over the VPs office...Cheney being his real target from the get go, from all I can tell.
I think the lefty dream scenario was to convict Cheney and then go after Bush. They did not want to create a President Cheney.
Jury Instructions and Free Form Liveblog
By emptywheel @ 7:05 am
Terrific graphics, Starwise!
It is really bizarro...to be folling this trial through periodic blog transcripts...
while having that Lounge Act Judge, holding his sitcom hearing in the Anna Nicole case wall to wall on Fox News.
When Judith Miller went to jail in July I rejoiced because some justice, at least in my eyes, was being visited on a media whore who helped the Bush Administration mix the KoolAid that took us to war. ---------- "Fallout from the Miller Affair," by Larry Johnson , Thu Oct 20th, 2005 at 07:41:29 PM EDT
10:05
Walton: begins giving jury instructions. If you are unsure on instructions, please notify my in manner I will indicate to you.
I found Larry Johnson's BIO on the same page as that article.
He retired from the CIA in 1989.
That means, if he "knew" Plame was covert he would have had to have been told by a CIA agent who was still employed by the CIA in 1997.
He either broke the law by divulging such information or another CIA agent would have broken the law telling him.
If not, he would have been just giving his opinion, not fact.
He's a sleaze and those who repeat his "opinion", David Cornball, et al, are just as sleazy.
Further proof Larry Johnson suffers from BDS.
February 20, 2007
NBC News And The Libby Trial
My guess is that NBC News is deeply divided on the Scooter Libby trial. Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and David Shuster are undoubtedly rooting for convictions on all five formal charges and maybe a few more - David Shuster is probably right now working on a report describing how the jurors convicted Libby, exchanged high fives, then dropped their own unpaid parking tickets on the defense table as they walked out.
However, the cooler heads at NBC (i.e., everyone else) are probably crossing their fingers and hoping for acquittals all around, most especially on the counts involving Tim Russert. Otherwise, the defense will appeal, Judge Walton's decision to keep Andrea Mitchell out of the trial will be a basis for the appeal, and NBC News will have to "report" on the Tim Russert situation for months to come. This will be especially difficult for David Gregory, erstwhile "newsman", who has been duct-taped by the NBC lawyers and not allowed to comment on whether Ari Fleischer, a key witness against Libby, lacks credibility.
The gist of the Andrea Mitchell puzzle was this - on Oct 3, 2003 she said that it was "widely known" among reporters covering the Niger story that Wilson's wife was with the CIA. However, in subsequent public statement she disavowed that, and NBC lawyers assured the court that under oath she would continue to disavow that; consequently, the judge ruled that her testimony would be confusing and invite the jury to speculate, so he kept her out. (I am sure that is not a good summary and I welcome a better one but I did not follow his thought process. Some background here).
Well - this will only be relevant if there is an appeal, but while NBC News "covers" this story, maybe they can cover Mitchell/Russert dilemma, and the rest of us can judge the reliability of Ms. Mitchell's various and varied public statements.
Here, for example, are the Two Faces of Andrea on the question of whether she has been involved with this investigation. From Don Imus, Nov 23, 2005:
IMUS: Have you been subpoenaed?
MITCHELL: No, no - not at all.
IMUS: Have you ever - have you talked to Fitzgerald informally?
MITCHELL: No - in no way. I was - I didn't have any knowledge about this. You know, one of the things that happened was that the Washington Post wrote an inaccurate story in the middle of this whole period, saying that I was one of the six people who had been leaked to before the Novak column. And that's how my name first got into this.
Which was not true. They didn't check with me. They didn't call me. I was in the office all day. It was a Sunday. They wrote the story on Monday morning.
"They didn't check with me. They didn't call me" clearly refers to the WaPo. However, let's hear from Andrea on The Tim Russert Show, Oct 29, 2005:
MITCHELL: You know, I should have spoke--'cause there's been a lot blogged about all of this--I was called by the CIA because it was erroneously reported in The Washington Post that I was the recipient of the leak before Novak's column came out, and I had not been. So I was never questioned because I simply told the FBI--and, you know, NBC put out a statement that night--that I had not been a recipient of the leak; in fact, I had learned about it from Novak's column like everyone else. Then after the fact, a lot of us had gotten calls and conversations with people, you know, `Hey, how about the Novak column?' But that was after the fact.
"I was called by the CIA" pretty surely means "FBI", based on the next sentence. But what did she mean with "I was never questioned because I simply told the FBI..."? ; Did they say "We're with the FBI" and she just started talking? Was it the old "Don't let 'em get a word in edgewise" ploy?
Well. Arguably, she was referring exclusively to Fitzgerald and his grand jury when she told Don Imus that "in no way" was she involved with the investigation. Still, this is easily settled - did she or did she not talk to the FBI? The answer will certainly help us judge whether she was being careful with her words and parsimonious with the truth when she said "in no way". IF she talked to the FBI then, yes way. And if her public statements about her role in this case are not reliable, well, where are we?
That said, it is worth remembering that Fitzgerald seemed to play along in Russert's attempt to conceal his cooperation with the FBI, so there may be a bit of a public cover-up here as well.
And for completeness, here is her original NBC denial, as best I can tell. This would be from Sept 29, 2003:
TOM BROKAW: NBC News correspondent Andrea Mitchell has been identified by some as one of the recipients of a leak about the undercover agent. But tonight, Mitchell said that was not the case, that her first discussion with an administration official about the matter was after the Robert Novak column was published. And that discussion, she said, was off the record.
Even if we believe her and don't suspect she is simply trying to protect her source, "Administration official" does not exclude, oh, Joseph Wilson, whose home number she knew when she called on July 5 to book him for a July 6 appearance coinciding with his NY Times op-ed.
Posted by Tom Maguire on February 20, 2007 | Permalink
How are you guys following the Libby trial?
Is it on TV?
10:05
Walton: begins giving jury instructions. If you are unsure on instructions, please notify my in manner I will indicate to you. Warns them to follow the law, not to question the law [ut oh, there goes Defense's attempt at jury nullification] Beyond reasonable doubt: sole and exclusive judges of the facts.
Wells was pouting this morning. But now he's back. Looks bored.
Walton: Your recollection should control during deliberations. Permitted you to ask questions. If I did not ask question, I decided it was not legally proper to ask. Juror may not consider that question. Evidence included witnesses, exhibits, and stipulations. Stipulations introduced to impeach a witness, only relevant to witness.
Two types of evidence, direct evidence, and circumstantial evidence. Law makes no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence.
Transcripts of GJ testimony true and correct to best of her ability, transcripts of WH press briefings/gaggles true and correct copies. If you perceived any variation, guided by tape recordings.
Now talking about lawyers' statements. Objections. Not prejudice against lawyers.
Presumption of innocence remains with defendant. [Wells read this yesterday]
If govt proves every element of offense beyond reasonable doubt, then you must find guilty.
Reasonable doubt kind of doubt that would cause a reasonable person to hesitate to act in graver or more important matters of life. Based on reason. Govt not required to prove doubt to scientific certainty.
Witnesses, whether witnesses impresses as an individual, accurate reflection, full opportunity to observe matters about which testified, friendship or hostility with this case. Inconsistencies may or may not cause you to discredit testimony. Always consider whether important or unimportant detail.
10:22
That judge is a disgrace...and there are lots more like him. I have turned FOX off.
No...we have been getting a blogger's transcript of what the testimony is...and posting it on this thread.
To add to TXSLEUTH's comment, the blogger is a lib and often interjects his/her opinions and comments into the text, usually derogatory comments directed at the defense.
Since Walton is giving juror instructions, can I assume that Fitz and Wells are both done and that there will be no more comment allowed by any of the attorneys?
Thanks...I forgot to mention that..
At the top of today's page they have a picture of VP Cheney with a sneer on his face...
AND, on MSNBC last night, when reporting about this they ONLY showed footage of CHENEY!!!
IOW..to the lefties this is a trial against Dick Cheney..and I am praying that Fitzy's obvious concurring attitude makes the jury realize that ...and acquit Libby.
I guess....but, at the end of yesterday's court proceedings I could have sworn that there was indication of time for a sur-rebuttal by Libby's lawyer today...
I guess not.
Bah...didn't Clarice indicate there might be some time for a sur-rebuttal today???
Larry Johnson has a website called "No Quarter."
He's famous for downplaying the terrorist threat at any opportunity, his best one being an op ed dissing the Bin Laden threat right before 9/11.
Larry's also been quoted in articles writted by Randall Royer- Royer ended up under arrest in the Paintball Cel/VA Jihad investigations... in a cell led by an Iraqi-American named Timimi.
Larry Johnson along with VIPS dork Ray McGovern have written peices for Truthout.com, the website registered on the day before the 9/11 attacks which was caught up in the Capitol Hill Blue "T J Wilkinson" scam which consisted of alleged CIA source who was in on White House meetings, etc. The CHB website sanitized itself rapidly when Wilkinson was called out as a fraud on FR and elsewhere. Truthout is associated with John Kerry staffer Peter Daou & Marc Ash. It's asociated with William Pitt who is in turn buddies with Scott Ritter, who as we know was in the pay- indirectly- of Saddam Hussein.
The blogger Seixon connects Larry Johnson with a reporter named Richard Sale.
I too thought that they were going to allow a surrebuttle after the Fitzfong meltdown, but apparently not if they have gone to jury instructions.
All that is left after that is deliberation and verdict.
I did not think Walton should have allowed Fitz's comments regarding Cheney and Bush because they did not pertain to any of the crimes that Libby was charged with, and they implied the existence of crimes for which no one has been charged. It was inflammatory innuendo unsupported by the evidence presented in the trial, and should not have been allowed.
10:22
Memory: Amount of time, circumstances that existed, nature of information or event person is called upon to remember, circumstances that existed when person asked to recall event, amount of time between event and recall, your assessment of memory, any evidence that shed light on memory of individuals.
Earlier statements made not under oath as opposed to these statements.
Earlier statements made under oath–you may consider this earlier statement as proof that what was said in earlier statement was true, as well as to question memory of earlier person.
Earlier consistent statements, you may consider this consistency and as proof that what was said was true.
Ari Fleischer's grant of immunity. Consider whether such testimony furthered witness' own interest.
Law enforcement official's testimony, consider using same guidelines you apply to other witnesses. In no event give greater or less weight.
Right not to testify. Libby has chosen to exercise this right. Do not use this against him. [Hey Walton–How about holding it against him that Cheney didn't testify??]
Consider each count separately. The fact that consider him guilty or not guilty should not influence other counts.
One count you were asked was whether nature would render your ability to render fair verdict.
Now going into charges.
10:32
Going through the Judy Miller part of the Obstruction charge. Just Russert and Cooper. You may however consider evidence presented on conversations with Miller at trial to evaluate whether Obstruction.
Hey, Jane and I are going upstairs. We'll update when we get back!!
I thought so also...
Oh..well, I guess the blogger got bored, cause they just left, said they would be back....sheesh
Notice the remark by the blogger wanting the judge to have it go against Libby because Cheney didn't testify.
This is all about Cheney.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.