Libby trial goes to jury. Any predictions?

POSTED BY: SoupCatcher
UPDATED: Tuesday, March 6, 2007 19:29
VIEWED: 4300
PAGE 1 of 3

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE

SOUPCATCHER

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 10:59 AM

Hey all,

I'm not sure how many of you have been following the Scooter Libby trial. Quick summary: this is the first case to go to trial from the Plame leak. Closing arguments were yesterday and the jury should start deliberating today. The five counts are all related to Libby's grand jury testimony and discrepancies the government found between what he testified there and what he told the FBI and what others testified.

I've been following some of the coverage over at firedoglake.com (not all of it, there's way too much information for me to keep up with - what with the live blogging from the courtroom and the multiple posts from the panel of people they've assembled who were able to procure press passes: a prosecutor, a defense attorney, an author of a book about the Plame leak, etc.). Mainly I watch the nightly summary clips that politicsTV has put together. But today, I actually kept up with the live blogging of the closing arguments. It seems really bad when the lead defense attorney buries his head in his hands after giving his closing and doesn't even look up during the prosecution's rebuttal. Aside from that oddity, I personally thought that the end of Fitzgerald's rebuttal to defense's closing today was magnificent. Especially the part where he outlined why obstructing a federal investigation by lying is a bad thing.

Quote:
typos fixed from http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/20/libby-live-fitzgeralds-rebuttal-
two/

*** live-blogged - not an exact transcript ***

Don't you think [the] FBI deserves straight answers. When you go in that jury room, your commonsense will tell you that he made a gamble. He threw sand in the eyes of the FBI. He stole the truth of the judicial system. You return guilty, you give truth back.

I'd like to get the perspective from any lawyers out there: is it ever a good thing when the person on trial doesn't give evidence in their own defense?

My guess is that he is found guilty on some of the counts. I would be very surprised on a not guilty on all counts. And then... Cheney?

MEDFORDTIM

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 1:44 PM

That would be nice, but I think it'll be more like "Presidential pardon time" before he can be flipped to testify against Cheney.

I'm not a lawyer, don't even play one on TV, but it's not unusual for a defendent to not take the stand - especially if the prosecutor is on the ball. Leaves too many openings - why make it worse than it is?

Did you read the Larry Johnson piece? Well worth a read, especially for those who haven't had a chance to keep up with events. I posted it over at the Young Turks: http://www.theyoungturks.com/story/2007/2/19/92238/9720

Anyway, that's what I think...

MT

DAYVE

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 3:23 PM

I predict that I. Scooter Libby will receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom from a gushing G.W. Bush for his loyal dedication to preserving the bacon of Dicky-Boy.

There is very little justice in this country when it comes to FOG…(friends of George)….if there were, Dick Cheney would be in the hot seat not Scooter.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 4:25 PM

There's no crime here, other than failure to remember what who said to whom, and when. Big deal. No one finds it odd that Libby isn't even being tried for 'outing' Plame ? WHY ? Because she wasn't a covert operative, or because Libby didn't out her in the 1st place.

What Americans REALLY care about is why Sandy Burglar isn't being held for stealing from the National Archives ? Clinton's former NSA hid TOP SECRET papers related to the 9-11 Commission in a construction site, so the claim that he absent mindedly brought out some papers in a unkempt shuffle is complete bunk. There's far more to this story that isn't being reported, and yet all we hear about from some is ' Libby' ??/ WTF ?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 5:05 PM

"What Americans REALLY care about is..."

I'm not convinced Americans really care about any of this.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 5:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"What Americans REALLY care about is..."

I'm not convinced Americans really care about any of this.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Sadly, you're probably right. It's Anna Nichole and Britney, 24/7

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SOUPCATCHER

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 6:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
There's no crime here, other than failure to remember what who said to whom, and when. Big deal. No one finds it odd that Libby isn't even being tried for 'outing' Plame ? WHY ? Because she wasn't a covert operative, or because Libby didn't out her in the 1st place.

Larry Johnson, who worked for the CIA and came into the agency in the same class as Valerie Plame, had a piece on his blog yesterday about just that issue (whether Plame was a covert operative).

Quote:
excerpted from http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/02/was_she_covert.html
...
There are two types of people who work at CIA. First are the "overt" employees. These are folks who can declare on their resume or any credit application that they are a CIA employee. Their status is not classified and their relationship with the CIA is openly acknowledged. Valerie Plame was never an "overt" employee. At no time during her entire time at the CIA did she identify herself as a CIA employee. Although she appeared in Who's Who as the wife of Ambassador Wilson there is no reference whatsoever to her having a job at the CIA. Zippo!

The remaining category of employee is covert. Covert employees include people who work under "official cover" and people who work under "non-official cover". A former CIA officer, Tom Gilligan, discussed both types of cover in his book CIA Life: 10,000 Days With the Agency. Official cover means the employee can say that he or she works for the United States Government, e.g. State Department, but at no time do you admit publicly that you work for the CIA. You get the added benefit of carrying an official or diplomatic passport. If you get caught overseas engaged in intelligence activity it means you have diplomatic immunity and the equivalent of a get out of jail free card.

Non official cover or NOC also is covert but is more sensitive (and dangerous). A NOC does not work for the U.S. Government. A NOC does not have an official or diplomatic passport. A NOC works for a business or organization with no tie to the U.S. Government. If you are caught overseas while conducting espionage activities as a NOC you are screwed. You do not get a jail out of free card. You remain in jail or may be executed.

Now I will write this in big block letters: VALERIE PLAME WAS STILL UNDER NON OFFICIAL COVER WHEN NOVAK PUBLISHED HER NAME. Valerie and I started our career together and both of us were given official cover. But Valerie later took the additional and more dangerous risk of going under Non Official Cover. She became a NOC and, thanks to the Corn/Isikoff book Hubris, we now know she was helping hunt down Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.
...

You can bring up Sandy Berger all you want. The fact that you bring up someone who pled guilty shows that your stable of, "LOOK! Distraction over here," horses is pretty empty.

MedfordTim:
Thanks for the link. I hadn't read that particular post but had read some rebuttals of the Toensing hit piece.

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 7:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:

I'd like to get the perspective from any lawyers out there: is it ever a good thing when the person on trial doesn't give evidence in their own defense?

I remember hearing during the OJ trial: defense attorneys are scared to death of putting the defendant on the stand. Officially, if the defendant is under oath, he has to tell the truth. Catch him in a lie and he's up for perjury. Also messes up the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination thing: defendant is answering questions, attorney asks, " Did you do it?" , defendant says, too late, " fifth amendment." Everybody figures he's guilty.

Too many chances for a defendant to screw up.

A prediction: not guilty by reason of insanity...
;<)

RUE

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 7:43 PM

Just what I've read but it makes sense to me - if Libby goes free, end of story. If Libby is convicted he'll be pardoned before anyone can 'flip' him to provide testimony on Cheney. Sadly, also end of story.

RUE

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 7:46 PM

BTW, Rap,

That whole thing about there being no crime, no case and no story is now the big item in right-wingnut newsland. I read it myself in TownHall.

You keep sayin' you're not a talking-pointy-head, but everything that ends up here comes straight from there.

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE