Here is the "evil" Scooter and his lawyer.
Posted on 02/19/2007 8:16:47 AM PST by Bahbah
"There are certain themes and classic techniques that the Defense bar takes advantage of at Summation. Some call them old chestnuts. Some treat them like the works of Shakespeare.
Among the themes you will usually hear from the Defense is often a discussion of reasonable doubt. The usual jury charge judges give says something along the lines of “beyond a reasonable doubt is not beyond all doubt. It is the level of certainty you would use in making a serious decision in your own life; buying a house, choosing a job, planning an education.” The Defense’s job is to confuse the jury about the standard “beyond a reasonable doubt.” A well done Defense summation will cause a juror to believe that if they have any sense of hesitation or if they have any question that they cannot point to or infer an answer for, that must somehow rise to the level of a reasonable doubt. A skillful lawyer does not do this in a stark black and white kind of way, but rather just a “thumb on the scale.” Shifting the result just a bit in favor of his client.
Remember, the Prosecution has to convince ALL the jurors in order to win, the Defense need only convince ONE juror in order to get a hung jury which gives him a re-trial. Yep, a do over.
Another theme that you may very well see in a case like this is the Defense taking a shot at jury nullification. Jury nullification occurs when the jury sees that the facts are as the Prosecution said they would be, the law is as the Prosecution believed, the Defendant is clearly guilty, yet the jury will refuse to do it’s duty and convict. My experience with jury nullification involved a jury who clearly believed (or so they said in the post verdict press interviews) that the Defendants were guilty of the crimes charged and that the government had presented sufficient evidence, however they felt that the underlying criminal activity (in this case giving someone a patronage job as a form of a bribe) was so commonplace that it ought not be a crime. The jury forewoman actually said that “everybody does it” and that she had gotten her own job through “a favor.” Consequently, they refused to vote to convict because they thought the crime shouldn’t be crime.
fdl has begun their analysis today, although I don't think there is any court action until tomorrow.
So welcome back to the thread about the case that never should have been.
Here is the "evil" Scooter and his lawyer.
Thank you...
did you read that whole column?? LOL he/she was talking about "Scottish law"...
They have 3 choices...Guilty, not guilty, not proven.
I just automatically think of Specter when I hear Scottish Law though...hehe
If Bush had a backbone, he would have called Fitzgerald out for the phoney he is and pardoned Libby a long time ago. Of course he would have vetoed McCain-Fingold too, and he would have pardoned the border agents, and.......
That sounds like a good idea.
I did read an article they had about the fight in Congress over the war...boy, you can REALLY tell the lefy POV of that website when reading that....LOL
Here is the rest:
"Emptywheel has an intriguing theory about how jury nullification may play out:
Throughout this trial, Wells has stated that Armitage and Rove were the leakers, in spite of the fact that Libby, too, had a conversation with Novak in plenty of time to leak Plame's identity and in spite of the fact that Libby clearly did his share of leaking. In dealing with Ari, Jeffress clearly suggested that Ari should be charged with perjury for not admitting that Pincus is his source. Fitzgerald has charged that this is an attempt at jury nullification. That is, he is suggesting (and it's a very serious charge) that Team Libby is trying to get the jury to believe that it was wrong for Libby to be charged and that, in spite of all the instructions they will get about the seriousness of obstruction and lying, he should not be found guilty. Fitzgerald is suggesting that Wells is planting the notion that, since Armitage is the big leaker, Libby shouldn't go to jail. Or that, since Ari didn't face charges, neither should Libby.
IMO, there is a big risk this will be successful. I have no idea what Wells will say in his closing statements, but he's sure to bring up Armitage and Rove and Ari again. Add in Wells' statement that "the only way my client is found guilty is if you violate your oath," and I think Fitzgerald's harsh charge is totally fair. Wells appears to want the jury to find Libby innocent because of all the bright shiny objects out there. After all, they only need to pick off one juror.
Of all the classic Defense Summations, my all time favorite is something called “The Scottish Verdict Summation.” I have no idea if it correctly reflects the laws of Scotland or not, but it goes something like this:
In the United States we offer juries a choice from only two verdicts: guilty or not guilty. In the United States the not guilty verdict does not exactly equal a verdict that the Defendant is innocent.
In Scotland, juries are offered a choice of three possible verdicts: guilty, innocent and not proven. It is the not proven verdict that I wish to focus your attention on. By voting “not proven” the jury says, ‘we may believe that the Defendant committed the crime charged, but we believe that the Prosecution has not met its burden here in this court.’
The Defense will then launch into a litany of investigation techniques that the government did not employ, witnesses the government did not call, exhibits the government did not try to offer into evidence.
Then the Defense will finish off something like this: In this country we do not have the luxury of the three verdict system. We fold in together the innocent verdict and the not proven verdict into one verdict we call “not guilty.” If you believe that the Prosecution has not met its burden here in this courtroom, regardless of whether you believe the Defendant is innocent, you are required by your oath, to find that if the case is not proven the Defendant is indeed not guilty.
Done well, the Scottish Verdict Summation can be very effective. Although it is old hat to lawyers, it is fresh and new for jurors.
My personal guess, this Defense’s best hope is jury nullification, perhaps along the lines that Emptywheel envisions. It’s fall back position is to work for a hung jury, because in that case Libby lives on to fight another day in the “do over” trial."
emptywheel should be called emptyhead.
So what if Libby had a conversation with Novak in time to leak Plame's identity (not a crime, by the way). Is empty suggesting that Novak is lying? There is no indication that he is or has, like him or not.
It sounds like that is what emptywheel was saying...but Robert Novak testified about Armitage...and knew that Fitzy knew about Armitage before this GJ was ever even summoned...IIRC.
I do believe you recall correctly.
I scrolled down fdl and found that they are quite upset with Victoria Toensing for "smearing" Fitzy. LOL.
Here it is: "Former prosecutor Victoria Toensing has an op-ed in the Washington Post today (debunked nicely by Larry Johnson)outlining her case for Scooter Libby's acquittal. In two words: jury nullification.
(Thanks, Victoria, for attempting to personally smear the prosecutor on the eve of closing arguments. I bet if a true criminal defense lawyer wrote an article like that you'd accuse him or her of trying to influence the jury pool.)
Toensing is playing to the court of public opinion here, not the court of law. By setting forth her grounds for indicting others in the case, she's advocating exactly what Patrick Fitzgerald has said he's on guard against: the defense playing the jury nullification card, arguing that it's not fair Libby was charged while others weren't.
I don't think Team Libby is going to make that argument, at least not directly. They know Patrick Fitzgerald would repeatedly interrupt Wells' closing to object and there's few things worse than losing your rhythm and the jury's undivided attention in closing because of objections from the other side.
I suspect Wells will argue reasonable doubt. He will tell the jury there is a reasonable doubt that Russert, Cooper, Miller, et. al. are accurate in their recall of conversations while Libby is not. He will tell them that even if they believe the Government witnesses are accurate, they must have a reasonable doubt that Libby intentionally lied or tried to mislead the grand jury, as opposed to being mistaken. All Wells needs for a not guilty verdict is for the jury to weigh the evidence and conclude one of these eight scenarios apply:"
I'll link to the rest: http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/18/the-worst-argument-for-libbys-acquittal/#more-7316
Thanks...we both know that Toensing has been aghast at this whole trial....she knew from the beginning that Fitzy should never have taken any case to trial, because there never was a crime committed.
Yes, and she explained it all quite clearly at the time. It has been clear from the outset that this was all done for political purposes, aided by the media, most especially Chris Matthews publicly, and Russert behind the scenes.
Jeralyn Merritt goes on about Wells' probable argument that the case has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt:
"Wells will go through each of the Government witnesses and show where and how their memories likely were inaccurate,inconsistent or not credible. For example, Ari Fleischer denied he was a source for Walter Pincus while Pincus testified Ari was one of his sources. Wells will not argue Ari Fleischer should have been charged with perjury. He will argue that both Fleischer and Pincus can't be correct and that if Fleischer's memory failed him on the Pincus conversation, maybe it also failed him on his conversation with Libby — the one in which Libby told him about Joseph Wilson's wife working at the CIA and having a role in sending him to Niger and that it was "hush, hush" and "on the q.t."
While Libby isn't charged with lying about his conversation with Fleischer, it's another example of how faulty everyone's memory is in this case.
With Matthew Cooper, Wells will argue that Cooper misconstrued his sloppily typed notes, which read:
"had somethine and abou the Wilson thing and not sure if it's ever."
Wells will ask the jury, given the examples they saw of Cooper typing the letter "r" for "n" in other notes, and using the word "and" as a pause between sentences, how can they be certain Cooper's note wasn't a reflection of Libby saying:
"heard something about the Wilson thing and not sure if it's even true"?
Cooper says his recollection now is that Libby said "Yeah I've heard that, too or words to that effect." But it's not in his notes. Which is more trustworthy, Wells will ask the jury, what he wrote then or what he remembers now, or neither, since his notes are fairly undecipherable? How can the jury conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Cooper's current memory is correct while Libby's memory as contained in his grand jury testimony is wrong?
Wells will tell the jury to use its common sense, particularly when it comes to memory. They will be instructed that a reasonable doubt is one that is based on reason and common sense. The jury is allowed to take its common sense, gathered from their lifetimes of experience, into the jury room.
He will ask them to remember times they have been certain they said "x" when it later turned out they said "y." Were they lying? Or simply mistaken? How can they not have a doubt that Libby too, was mistaken rather than lying?
I am not arguing here for Libby's acquittal. I'm not predicting an acquittal. (Personally, I think Wells has a Russert problem, and unless he argues that Libby mixed him up with another reporter, perhaps Novak, whom he spoke with on the 9th, just a day or two earlier than Russert, I’m not sure how he gets around it.) I'm merely pointing out what I think Wells' best arguments are and that he isn't going to go for a jury nullification argument, no matter how much Toensing wishes he would.
In fact, I can't think of a worse argument to make to the jury."
I disagree with Merritt. I don't think they have a Russert problem. I think Mr. Potato Head was effectively impeached.
JustOneMinute is calling this "Rashofitz."
"Rashomon” is the cinematic classic in which a story of rape and murder is told from the perspective of four of the people involved. But what is “the truth”, and in what ways are the four people shading their versions of events? The viewer is left to wonder.
Now, in a courtroom in Washington DC, Special Counsel Fitzgerald has updated this classic with his own unique twist – rather than focus on an underlying incident fraught with drama he has asked a number of witnesses to present their version of events which seemed inconsequential at the time and only became significant in hindsight. Next week the jury will be left to puzzle out who is telling the truth, who (if anyone) is deliberately lying, and who is simply confused.
In this production of “Rashofitz” Dick Cheney’s former Chief of Staff “Scooter” Libby is on trial for obstructing an investigation into the circumstances in which Valerie Plame’s CIA affiliation was leaked to reporters. Valerie Plame is the wife of former Ambassador Joe Wilson, who had been asked by the CIA travel to Niger in 2002 to investigate a report that Saddam Hussein was attempting to acquire uranium there. In the spring and summer of 2003, as the US military occupied Iraq and failed to find significant evidence of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, Joe Wilson became an anonymous and then public critic of the Administration’s handling of pre-war intelligence. His claim, as reported by Nick Kristof in May 2003 – he had traveled to Niger at the request of the Vice President, had come back with information that did not help make the case for war, and was consequently ignored."
More at the link: http://justoneminute.typepad.com/
The thing that I fear most is the defense will win and millions of people across the country will have to get a life....Scary
LOL. They won't.
Blackfive has some thoughts on all of this.
"If Plame was covert, she should be fired
Posted By Uncle Jimbo
There is one aspect of the Valerie Plame spy or not spy game that has actually not been discussed enough. If she was a covert operative at the time she arranged for Joe to conduct high-level tea drinking operations in Niger, then she and anyone in her chain of command was horrendously negligent in putting her cover at risk. Let's think about that for a minute.
A case officer or covert operative has an identity that they use for intelligence operations. They have a responsibility to maintain the secrecy of that identity and to maintain a low profile so as not to draw undue attention to it. This responsibility is paramount in the success of such an agent. Care must be taken not to expose their identity, but also to ensure that none of the contacts or assets they interact with will be exposed either.
Joe Wilson had no special qualifications that would recommend him for this trip and by volunteering him Ms. Plame and anyone in her chain who approved this trip made glaring errors perhaps even firing offenses. Even worse is the Op-Ed he wrote for the NY Times. Ms. Plame would have had an obligation top tell him to zip it, were she actually covert. There is now way on earth you could rightly say that his publishing a piece calling the President of the United States a liar wouldn't generate undue publicity. None of this would excuse someone if they purposely revealed her name knowing she was covert, but we know that didn't happen. Nobody involved knew she was covert, and if she was, she was either near-criminally incompetent or she simply was not covert.
Armed Liberal over at Winds of Change has a piece examining the law and some statements about Ms. Plame that's kinda interesting."
Link: http://www.blackfive.net/
Readers of this thread may also be interested in this.
Media Guilty In Libby Trial
GOPUSA ^ | Feb. 19, 2007 | Roger Aronoff
Having attended several sessions of the Scooter Libby trial, I was not surprised to hear that Libby and Vice President Cheney would not be testifying. The case against Libby is surprisingly thin, and from the point of view of the defense, the goal is to get Libby off, not put on a show for Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, and the left-wing blogs. The defense has apparently concluded that the government has not made a compelling enough case to convict Libby. When Matthews found out that they weren't going to testify, he said he was "flabbergasted." "We thought we were going to have a grand show," said Matthews.
Matthews' disappointment was palpable. "It seems to me if we had Cheney on the stand we would find out how we went to war with Iraq. We're not going to find that out again, right?"
Link to FR thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1787423/posts
LOL...I was just coming here to post that article.
When I read that quote by Sissy Chrissy Matthews, I just had to save it.
That is what this has been all about all along for he and the MSNBC crowd...they thought they were going to get a number of impeachable offenses regarding the war out of this trial...
Even though Fitzy supposedly said it wasn't about proving or disproving the pre-war intelligence...Matthews never dropped that as being the whole trials raison d'etre.
Matthews is nothing but a dirty liar.
And so are Andrea Mitchell and Tim Russert.
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.