Victoria's Secret ~~ Libby Trial Deliberations: 3-1-07

firedoglake.com ^ | 3-1-07 | Empty Wheel

[STARWISE]

http://www.firedoglake.com/

Victoria’s Secret By emptywheel @ 6:58 am

The jury is starting another day of deliberations. No word yet on a verdict — you'll know as soon as we know. And in the meantime…

Also, yesterday afternoon (3:45) the jury asked for another post-it flip chart pad.

We would like another big Post-it pad. The large one for the easel.

Someone has been in too many business brainstorming sessions, I think. Jokes in the media room about "The Libby Trial, brought to you by Post-It."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And a prosecutor takes a shot at Victoria Toensing for her WaPo article.

``````````````

Remember a few weeks ago, when Jim Marcinkowski challenged Ted Wells to put his punk on the stand –either one of them.

here:

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/13/hey-come-on-put-your-punk-on-the-stand-2/

Well, it seems like Marcinkowski is a little bit irked that Wells didn't do so. Because he really lays the slapdown on Victoria Toensing in this post at No Quarter. He starts by reminding her (and who should have to remind Toensing of this, after her rants about Clinton?) that perjury is a crime.

Second, to allege that there first must be an underlying crime to bring a perjury charge is flat wrong, and every first-year law student knows it. Perjury is itself a crime, period. Under the Grand Jury system, evidence is presented to a panel.

If the panel decides that a crime was committed, then an indictment is issued. If not, the case ends. Either way, the evidence submitted must be the truth. You don’t get to lie to a Grand Jury. That’s pretty simple, unless of course you feel that one should be free to lie and suffer no consequence - hardly an argument that should be advanced by an attorney and officer of the court.

Marcinkowski then explains a few things about spying.

To assert that Valerie was not covert is to assert that the CIA operates public branch offices overseas. Victoria, here’s a news flash for you - there are a lot of people in this world that don’t like the United States in general and the CIA in particular. Anyone in the CIA traveling overseas would be as nuts as your op-ed to reveal that association. CIA officers and offices are placed all over the world. I really don’t recall the CIA crest adorning any office or being listed in any embassy directory. Victoria, the CIA is a spy agency, it is full of spies who spy on objects of interest to the United States. There are no non-covert spies.

To add a gloss of legitimacy, Ms. Toensing erroneously cites the law as requiring the covert agent to have had a “foreign assignment,” then concludes that Valerie was not “stationed” overseas.

Nice try. The law uses neither of these descriptions as a basis for defining the criminal act of disclosing the identity of a covert agent. The law only requires that the agent have served overseas within the preceding five years of his or her disclosure. CIA officers may very well serve overseas by meeting with secret sources in third countries.

The fact that they may be “stationed” or “assigned” to Washington, D.C. does not prohibit them from serving overseas by actually engaging in clandestine operations in other countries and returning thereafter to this country.

Would the purpose of the law designed to protect our agents operating overseas be served by distinguishing between the two scenarios? If so, then Ms. Toensing, who claims to have assisted the Senate Intelligence Committee in drafting the law, did a very lousy job.

And finally, he hits the right note of seriousness about a office of the court making false statements.

Rules of professional conduct for attorneys around the country make numerous references to truth telling both inside and outside the courtroom, e.g. “…an advocate must disclose the existence of perjury….” or, “…a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person…”

That about hits all the right notes, huh?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Steve_Seattle]

If there is a trial, I think the defense would have to bring Wilson to the stand and expose his lies and agenda. In his opening and closing remarks, Fitz relied heavily on Wilson's "outing" theory. It is the only thing that gives any weight to the charges, so the defense must confront that head-on. And it would be easy. If the judge or prosecution tried to prevent it, the defense would say that it relates directly to motive, motives which Fitz has been impuning since day one. If Fitz can use that line of attack - that Plame was "outed" to "get" Wilson - the defense has a right to put Wilson on the stand and establish the facts - or lack therof - surrounding his op-ed pieces.

The defense also needs to establish that there is nothing immoral, illegal, or unusual about an administration responding to critics. It is called politics. Good lord, Clinton did it 24/7.

[Howlin]

I hope you're right.

[shhrubbery!]

the only way Mitchell gets called is if Scooter is convicted and they get a better judge at appeal

I could be wrong, but I don't think an appeals court will hear new witnesses (or at least witnesses who weren't allowed to testify at the trial court level).

Appeals, AFAIK, are usually done "on the record," meaning the record established by the trial court. But, I'm no lawyer.

I think the only way we'd ever get to hear Andrea Mitchell on the hot seat is if (a) there's a mistrial, (b) Fitz retries and (c) Libby gets a more favorable judge. Chances for (c) I think are slim.

[Bahbah]

I don't think an appeals court will hear new witnesses

You are correct.

[STARWISE]

;)

[CutePuppy]

"I read the statements that are the basis of the charges, and it is appalling..."

The legal basis of the charges are irrelevant, because the basis for "investigation" were never there to begin with, except political, which has been proved by Fitz in his closing, rebuttal, and was obvious to anyone with a brain (even in DC) right after Armitage story came out.

Fitz was asking everyone (Armitage, Novak, Woodward...) not to talk about "investigation" or what they knew to be the truth, because Fitz needed the cover of IIPA and "CIA leak" story to entrap people for procedural case - he didn't have a real one since he took over the case!

And with all that work and complete cooperation of his real targets of his phony "investigation" all he could scramble together came down to 5 flimsy counts of contradicting testimony of "reporters" who can't remember a thing and probably "lie to their notebook" or at least can't tell what it says or why it so differs from their "perfect memory" of that one phone conversation with Libby, and which couldn't be confirmed because FBI apparently "lied to the notebook" which they now cannot find.

Josh Steiner, of Clinton's Treasury Dept fame "lied to his diary" and he only lost the job.

[STARWISE]

Good synopsis!

[Republican Red]

Libby Update [Byron York]

Greetings from the Libby trial. The jury has been deliberating all day — Day Seven. We've just been told that Judge Reggie Walton is going to make a statement to jurors in court at 4:30 p.m. No word on what he intends to say.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/

[Enchante]

You've said it so well, Mr. Potato-Head can't remember anything except his utter certainty (previously not too certain when talking to the FBI agent) that he didn't mention Valerie Pflame to Libby:

"To take Russert alone, he couldn't remember writing a letter to a TV station defending his performance as a debate moderator; he couldn't remember being on the Today show; he couldn't remember being on Imus; he couldn't remember joking about Santa Claus/Fitzmas; he couldn't remember grand jury regulations that he had explained to national television audiences. He couldn't remember ANYTHING. But he was damned sure he never mentioned Valerie Plame to Scooter Libby. That is the only certainty in his life."

[STARWISE]

Live From the Libby Courthouse
By Jane Hamsher @ 12:58 pm (don't know why we get these updates so late)



*BREAKING* There is a note from the jury the content of which we don't know yet.

We also heard that the judge is going to address the jury at 4:30 pm today in the courtroom, and it is assumed he will dismiss them for the day.

We don't know whether the two things are related or not, but Marcy will be liveblogging it as it happens. — JH

David Shuster of MSNBC is reporting:

We have been advised, and I have just confirmed, that the courthouse cafeteria is now flooded. And I can report that some type of liquid has created large puddles on the cafeteria floor, in the area where food is served.

More significantly, the bathrooms next to the cafeteria have signs on the doors that say "closed." In other words, it is not a "cafeteria flood" as we had been led to believe, but rather a "bathroom flood" affecting the cafeteria.

This could impact the Libby jury in a crucial way: Every afternoon, around this time, the cafeteria workers will deliver "cookies" up to the jury room. Today, unless somebody has waders, or unless the jury is actively seeking a "mistrial via salmonella," there will be no cookie delivery.

This is not exactly the tough love we had been hoping the judge would impose on this jury to get them to reach a verdict. But, it is a start.

Reports that the bathroom discharge problems were caused by reporters/producers at A Network That Shall Not Be Named have not been confirmed.

We tried to get Shuster to tell us what network he was referring to in the final line, but he refused to confirm and mumbled something cryptic about "nobody you watch."

[onyx]

Thanks for the ping.

[Peach]

They're keeping track of which reporters caused the bathroom problem? But seemingly those same reporters can't figure out that this is a bogus case. Okey doke.

[JCEccles]

I think it is a bad sign.

I think it's a sign of a hung jury.

[the Real fifi]

well, hold that pessimism--apparently there is a scheduling issue and there will be no deliberations tomorrow. See you on Monday!

[Dolphy]

Great article. It seems when the Bush administration decided to fight back instead of submitting to the steady leaks of classified information used to undermine them, the enemy within upped the game. No wonder Fitzgerald spent so much time questioning people like Miller on Libby's handling of classified information. It isn't the Bush administration who has used the full force of the federal government against its enemies.

[STARWISE]

4:30 on Day Seven
By emptywheel @ 1:24 pm


graphic courtesy Monk at Inflatable Dartboard

As Jane has warned you, at 4:30, Walton will dismiss the jury (for the day, we think), and give the jurors an instruction. I suspect he may give them tomorrow off, which will bum me out bc I want to go home and I'm not sure I can get a flight and the snowstorms are starting up again in the Midwest and I'd really like to avoid getting stuck somewhere for a day again.

Both legal teams are already in the court room. Jeffress had left the building a few minutes but he made it back in time–I guess is the test case for 15 minute verdict watch.

Wells, Fitz, and Bonamici.

Word up on the jury request–the jury has asked to leave tomorrow at 2 to attend to some issues they can't attend to over the weekend. Walton granted it.

But there is apparently one more thing.

4:24

[STARWISE]

From Byron York
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://corner.nationalreview.com/

Libby Update 2 [Byron York]

Waiting for the judge to make his statement. But we now know that the jury sent a note to the judge asking that they be excused at 2 p.m. tomorrow. The judge said OK. That seems a clear suggestion that this jury might be planning on deliberating into next week.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.firedoglake.com/


Apparently tomorrow is parent-teacher conference day in the DC schools. So perhaps the jurors want to be good parents, after having done their good civic duty for over a month.

That's cool with me, I guess.

Ted Wells has his head face down on the table, shaking it from side to side. Now he he's just got his head in his hands, looking fed up. And now with a BIG yawn. Him and me both.

Okay, Walton is in.

Walton: THe reason I had you come back this evening is because apparently the jury, at least someone in the jury asked if she could get the dictionary.

I told her that no, you can't have a dictionary. Obviously I need to explain why.

While we try to use common language, sometimes words have a legal connotation, therefore it would be inappropriate to try to find definitions.

If they have questions they need to raise it with me, so I can raise it with counsel.

I can bring them in the court to do that. I know they won't be happy about coming into the court because they're not dressed to come into the court.

But if you me to bring them in and instruct them here in court.

Bonaimici whipsers to Fitz.

Both Fitz and Wells say something I can't hear.

4:35

Walton mentions the note about tomorrow. I assume we won’t have a veridcy either.

Jury in.

Walton. I understand that somebody had made a request for a dictionary. We tried—or at least I try best as I can to use common language.

Sometimes common language has legal connotations. If there’s any wording in the instructions, you can’t look through a dictionary to find out what the definition is. With that, since it's almost 5:00, we'll go ahead and…

Wells and Fitz approach.

Walton: let me expand upon what I said–ANY words, whether they are part of the instructions or part of the evidence, you can't look them up.

If you have questions, you should make that request of me. In light of the fact that it's almost 5:00, we'll have the Marshalls take you home and we'll see you tomorrow at the normal time.

4:39

[STARWISE]

Ping to #97

[STARWISE]

Wordz

[Howlin]

Like they won't look it up tonight.