Still waiting....

update to top..

JUDGMENT DAY 3/6/07

Guilty on 4 of 5. I'll admit to being disheartened because this was more about politics than crime, but if Libby did lie to the FBI or a GJ, then he must pay a price. It really serves no purpose to use the Clinton defense of "he was just lying about sex", etc, because such rationalizing subverts the rule of law. The same argument applies to illegal immigration.

Now the real fun begins. The anti-war set, including the top members of Congress and their friends in the media, will spin this into a guilty verdict on the pre-war intelligence. Olbermann will be apoplectic. Book contracts, interviews, and of course, a movie. The jurors will blab, especially the one removed. There's no way to stop it.

Many will be asking whether there's any coincidence with the story on Drudge about Cheney possibly stepping down due to his deep vein thrombosis? He's not running for office again and Bush will be advised to distance himself. Choosing a replacement might strengthen that person's resume for the 08 run. The left would be hard-pressed to paint such a move as politics with a doctor's excuse in hand, and if they do it will be painted as cruelty. One of the main sources of criticism would be removed. Could happen.

MORE..
MSNBC's streaming video of the journalist juror now. He's quite articulate in telling the story, which included an admisssion of how difficult the memory issue was. He claims they didn't see Libby as a particularly sinister character. He also says the jurors were not happy in completing their task (to mask any partisanship, if it existed).

They have no knowledge of any 'backstory' (ie, Andrea Mitchell) but implicitly believed Russert and "all the journalists" including Miller, whom they "had some sympathy for". They had no problem with Fleicher's testimony that he didn't tell Pincus and vice versa. Nothing about Armitage or Woodward.

MORE

"Least convincing thing"--Libby's memory defense. Sounds like Fitz had the case won from day one. There was idle chatter about the Niger thing, but they claimed to have stayed with the narrow instructions. "I wouldn't vote for Mr. Libby, if he ran for office, but I certainly felt for him" (passing judgment). Three registered Independents on jury. As to pardon-- "me personally? I wouldn't be upset a bit".

Reporter tried to tie in "Bush lied", but he didn't take the bait. Wasn't an indictment since it was only about Niger. No "punishment" involved.

end update


...for the Libby verdict. The jury seems to be subjecting Mr. Scooter to a form of Chinese water torture, leaking out little notes one after the next apparently awash in confusion over the meaning of the case just like the rest of us.

In a scene mildly reminiscent of the Clintonian brouhaha over the word "is", judge Walton was today trying to parse the conjunction "and" as it relates to the indictment. According to the Fire dogs:

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.

No wonder so few are following the case.

Still, if the notes portend anything it's "guilty" (my initial WAG), which if true might be a good sign for most since it'll soon put this whole thing to bed. Everyone knows Libby will appeal and there's a pardon in the presidential coat pocket. But for those of us enthralled with the trial minutiae and how the whole thing relates to the Iraq war, guess we'll have to go back to more important things.

MORE 3/6/07

The jury questions seem to be centered around the count that Libby lied to the FBI about his characterizations of his phone call with Matt Cooper of Time.

Here's what has me a little confused. From Libby's testimony in seems he was admitting he was INTENTIONALLY vague with Cooper because he didn't want him to think he was confirming that Plame sent Wilson to Africa. We know he already was aware of Plame's role during that call because he claims to have re-learned it from Russert. Neither Cooper nor Russert's testimonies were overly convincing in court based on what we've read.

But the case is not about that, it's about whether Libby lied to the FBI and GJ about those conversations. The jury only has their own memory (or any notes) about what the FBI agents testified to in court, suggesting the memory defense (or note-driven memory) is getting quite a workout right now.