Scooter Libby trial: Day 1.
By on Jan 16th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Scooter Libby trial: Day 1.
Firedoglake, The Next Hurrah, Tapped, and David Corn have detailed coverage.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Libby will be pardoned by Bush so the trial is a waste of time!
January 16th, 2007 at 9:41 pm“Would any of you have any difficulty fairly judging the believability of former or present members of the Bush Administration?”
Now that’s a loaded question…
January 16th, 2007 at 9:43 pmScootyday, ialay, de eanbillagespew.
January 16th, 2007 at 10:13 pm#5 – Truth
What?
January 16th, 2007 at 10:22 pmScooty must proliferate the flagellate-like rectillium, which must not procrastinate the prostate, while at the same time erectify the secretions in a testicular manner. Operculatious womb-driven recepticles are no longer part of the previous shit-trap, even with mammarion controls.
January 16th, 2007 at 10:22 pmI’m makin’ up stuff, I got a good one.
Scooters trial-day, beanspilling spew.
January 16th, 2007 at 10:23 pmOoo-kay!
Maybe you got more damage than a scab from your face-plant…?
January 16th, 2007 at 10:29 pmI think I did damage some more stuff in my head, now I even think I’m funny. Heh.
January 16th, 2007 at 10:34 pmScooty must first command the zygotic thrustification, with every available pimp. For his glutious surrounded sphincter will intestify with penile impactification.
January 16th, 2007 at 10:43 pmMr. Cheney, please explain one more time to the jury why the White House was talking about Valerie Plame.
Mr. Libby, if what you did was “OK” then why did you need to lie to the FBI and Grand Jury about it?
January 16th, 2007 at 10:45 pmWTF Careful Dude?
That post screams out lonliness.
January 16th, 2007 at 10:52 pmComment by careful now — January 16, 2007 @ 10:46 pm
You are sick.
You will be gone — again.
January 16th, 2007 at 11:03 pmThis new troll on here has gone insane! Where is TP staff when they are needed?
January 16th, 2007 at 11:09 pmJay,
Emails have been sent. Like it matters.
January 16th, 2007 at 11:17 pmComment by dotty cornell
You sir, appear to be the hackmeister to me.
January 16th, 2007 at 11:43 pmOk a 5.5 or so quake on that island. And?
January 16th, 2007 at 11:53 pmLibby’s shysters have already tossed at least two potential jurors for being hostile to the administration. Fitzgerald was pissed, I hear. Good trying to find 12 people in DC who aren’t hostile to this administration.
Maureen Dowd weighs in with her impressions of Bush’s interview on 60 Minutes and it’s better than her usual, I think.
January 17th, 2007 at 12:05 amComment by GoTFreeDUMB? i didnt think so
ok….OK….OK!
January 17th, 2007 at 12:08 amAs the trial is in DC and most jurors are minority it was good to see Libby wearing an ethnic tie. Next he might come to court with dread locks in hopes that African Americans think he supports and likes black people. Good luck in finding anyone in DC who likes Bush or Cheney or this invasion. But as Libby is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt I guess his attorneys have to tried anything. It’s the time line that will prove he’s guilty not the work load.
January 17th, 2007 at 12:54 amJay Randal:
This current thread jacker now calling himself ‘careful now’ is not new.
January 17th, 2007 at 3:14 amHe has been around since atleast ‘patricia reglin’,and indeed was/is ‘reglin’,and seemed to fool everyone into likeing ‘her’.
He (let’s call him PAT),has also trolled under the names:
1] Wellsley
2] angus thorsen
3] rachel b. blair
4] LiL Leprechan
5] and many others, including ‘little birdie’,who multi posted many threads just like this Jackass.
Others here think he was also ‘angie in georgia’.
I thought this might be useful:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ))
)
v. ) Criminal No.: 05-394
) (RBW)
I. Lewis Libby, ))
Defendant. )
_____________________________________ )
Voir Dire Questions
The Court will permit extensive individual voir dire of each potential juror, who will all be brought individually to the courtroom after the entire venire has been collectively asked the questions below and then removed to another location. This Court will also
permit counsel to ask jurors additional questions about their employment, which will in general terms be listed on the jury list counsel will be provided before the voir dire commences. The only questions that will not be permitted are those that are repetitive
of questions already asked and the following inquiries the parties have requested:
(A.) The potential jurors’ actual address. Counsel may ask, however, questions to identify the general neighborhood where jurors live, e.g., Adams Morgan, Anacostia, Chevy Chase, Georgetown, Shaw, or
Takoma, D.C.
(B.) The jurors’ place of birth. However, counsel may ask where the jurors were raised.
(C.) The jurors’ marital status.
(D.) Whether the jurors have children, step-children, or grandchildren.
(E.) The jurors’ native languages. One of the general questions to the venire will ask whether they have any difficulty speaking or understanding English.
(1.) Identify the trial participants:
(A.) The lawyers representing the United States:
Patrick J. Fitzgerald
Peter R. Zeidenberg
Debra Riggs Bonamici
Kathleen M. Kedian
David Miller
* Do any of you know any of these attorneys or have you head anything about them?
(B.) The defendant:
I. Lewis Libby, also known as Scooter Libby, who was formerly Vice President Richard Cheney’s Chief of Staff and National Security Advisor.
* Do you know Mr. Libby or have you heard anything about him?
(C.) The lawyers representing the defendant:
Ted Wells (a partner in the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison)
James L. Brochin (a partner in the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison)
Williams H. Jeffress (a partner in the law firm of Baker Botts)
Alex J. Bourelly (a partner in the law firm of Baker Botts)
John D. Cline (a partner in the law firm of Jones Day)
KC Maxwell (an of counsel in the law firm of Jones day)
David W. Brown (an associate in the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison)
Elizabeth M. Eaton (an associate in the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison)
Jessica S. Carey (an associate in the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison)
Alexandra Walsh (an associate in the law firm of Baker Botts)
Ben Fitzpatrick (an associate in the law firm of Baker Botts)
* Do you know any of these attorneys or have you head anything about them, or have you had any dealings with the law firms I just mentioned?
(2.) As I just indicated, Mr. Libby is the former Chief of Staff and National Security Advisor of Vice President Cheney. Do any of you have feelings or opinions about the Bush Administration or any of its policies or actions, whether positive or negative, that might affect your ability to give a former member of the Bush
Administration a fair trial?
(3.) Statement of the Case:
In July 2003, there were press accounts discussing former Ambassador Joseph
Wilson’s trip to Niger (a country in Africa) and his criticism of the Bush Administration concerning the reasoning for the United States going to war in Iraq. In those accounts it was revealed that former ambassador Wilson’s wife (Valerie Plame) worked at the Central Intelligence Agency (the CIA). After the articles were published, a federal investigation commenced to determine whether any violations of the law had been committed by the disclosure to the news media, and if so, who disclosed the
information. Arising out of this investigation, was the issuance of the grand jury indictment charging Mr. Libby, who as I indicated was Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff and National Security Advisor, with obstruction of justice, perjury, and making
false statements to Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Special Agents and a grand jury resulting from statements Mr. Libby made during the investigation.
(A.) Do you personally know anything about this case?
(B.) Have you read or heard anything about this case in the news media?
(C.) Is there anything that I have said about this case that may affect your ability to be fair and impartial in this case?
(4.) Do any of you know anyone else in the courtroom, including any of your fellow jurors?
(5.) The Court will read the parties’ joint list of witnesses and others who may be
mentioned during the trial. Do any of your know any of these individuals?
(6.) As just indicated, some of the possible witnesses will be former and present members of the Bush Administration, including Vice President Richard Cheney,
(A.) Would the fact that former or present members of the Bush Administration will be witnesses in this case impair your ability to be a totally fair and
impartial juror?
(B.) Would any of you have any difficulty fairly judging the believability of former or present members of the Bush Administration?
(C.) Do any of you have any feelings or opinions about Vice President Cheney, whether positive or negative, that might affect your ability to be
fair in this case or that might affect your ability to fairly judge Vice President Cheney’s believability?
(7.) Several witnesses who will testify in this case are members of the news media. Would any of you have any difficulty fairly judging the believability of a person
who is a member of the news media?
(8.) Is there anyone who feels that they might have any difficulty being fair and
impartial in this case due to the race or ethnicity of anyone who is involved in this
case?
(9.) Explain reasonable doubt, presumption of innocence, and burden of proof.
Would any of you have any problems accepting and applying these principles of
law?
(10.) Is there anyone who feels that a defendant should have to prove his innocence?
(11.) Is there anyone who feels that merely because the defendant has been charged with criminal offenses in this case probably means that he is guilty?
(12.) Every defendant in a criminal case has the absolute right not to testify, and if a defendant decides not to testify, you cannot in any way hold that against him or consider his decision not to testify in deciding whether the government has proven that he is guilty. Is there anyone who could not accept and follow this principle of law?
(13.) A defendant is not required to call any witnesses. Would the decision by a defendant not to call witnesses cause you to conclude that he is guilty?
(14.) If you are selected as a juror in this case, you must have the ability and the willingness to discuss the facts of the case with your fellow jurors during the
jury’s deliberations. Is there anyone who thinks they cannot do this?
(15.) If you are selected as a juror in this case, you must have the ability to make your own independent decision about the defendant’s guilt or innocence. Is there anyone who thinks they could not do this?
(16.) If you are selected as a juror in this case, you will be instructed that if you find that the government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt every element of an offense with which the defendant is charged, it is your duty to find the defendant guilty of that offense. On the other hand, if you find that the government has failed to prove any element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt, you must
find the defendant not guilty of that offense. Is there anyone who would have a problem following this instruction?
(17.) At this time, I want to ask you some questions about your beliefs or opinions about human memory:
(A.) Is there anyone who believes that everyone’s memory is like a tape recorder and therefore all individuals are able to remember exactly what
they said and were told in the past?
(B.) Is there anyone who feels that a person could not honestly say something about a matter he or she truly believed to be the true when that person several months earlier actually said something totally different about that same matter?
(C.) Is there anyone who believes that it is impossible for a person to mistakenly believe that he or she was told something by one person when in fact the person was actually told the information by someone totally different several months earlier?
(D.) Is there anyone who believes that it is absolutely impossible for a person to believe very strongly that he or she has certain memories about
something, even though it is determined that those memories are inaccurate?
(18.) Would any of you have any difficulty fairly judging the credibility of a law enforcement witness?
(19.) Have you, close friends, or close relatives ever served as a law enforcement official or applied for employment for such a position (a police officer, law
enforcement officer, prosecutor, prison guard or official, probation officer, parole officer, or a private security officer or guard)?
(20.) Have you, close friends, or relatives had interactions with the police or other law enforcement officials, whether positive or negative, that might impair your ability to give either side in this case a fair trial?
(21.) Are any of you lawyers or have any of your ever studied law?
(22.) Have any of you, close friends or close relatives ever served as a defense attorney, defense investigator, or in some other capacity where you or they provided services to people charged with crimes, or applied for employment in such positions?
(23.) Do any of you have any feelings about prosecutors, defense lawyers or people accused of crimes that might affect your ability to be a fair juror in this case?
(24.) Have any of you or any of your close friends or relatives ever been employed or applied for employment with the CIA or any other national intelligence agency?
(25.) Have any of your ever held a position in which you had access to classified information?
(26.) Have any of you ever participated in any type of anti-crime activity or victims’ rights organizations (neighborhood watch, the Orange Hats Program)?
(27.) Have any of you ever participated in any type of inmate assistance or exoffender programs?
(28.) Have any of you ever participated in any efforts to either increase or lessen the punishment of individuals who are convicted of criminal offenses?
(29.) Have any of you ever served as a grand juror or a petit juror in a criminal case?
(30.) Have you, close friends, or close relatives ever been the victim of a crime, a witness to a crime, or someone charged with a crime, regardless of what may
have happened to the case?
(31.) Do any of you have any religious, moral or philosophical beliefs that would affect
your ability to sit as a juror in a criminal case and be fair and impartial to both the
government and the defendant?
(32.) Do any of you have any health problems that might impair your ability to sit as a
juror in this case?
(33.) Are any of you taking medication that might impair your ability to sit as a juror in this case?
(34.) Do any of you have any problems hearing or seeing?
(35.) Do any of you have any problems understanding or speaking the English language?
(36.) This trial could take up to 4 to 6 weeks to complete. Is there anyone who could not sit as a juror in this case due to the anticipated length of the trial?
(37.) I anticipate there will be a fair amount of news and other media coverage about this case. One of the things you will have to do if you are selected as a juror in this case is to avoid all contact with the news or other media coverage of this case. Therefore, throughout the trial, if you are a member of the jury, you will not be able to read the newspaper before it is screened by court staff and you will have to avoid watching or listening to the news and any other media programs. Is there anyone who thinks they would be unable to do these things if you were selected as a juror?
(38.) Is there anyone who for any reason feels he or she could not sit as a juror in this case and be fair to both parties?
January 17th, 2007 at 3:37 amTroll Alert,
I see how wrong I was about Rachel/Smendrick. Sorry, for being such an ass.
January 17th, 2007 at 3:46 amYou know … ROBERT ?
The resident TP hacker ?
Comment by Jewish Liberator
Rachel . . .
You must get awfully tired doing all that cutting and pasting. What are you really, a trust-fund baby? ‘Cause we all work, yet you can be found posting here under any one of, what? thirty names, not counting the ones you steal, any time day or night. For what? Do you think this is going to drive us away? I’ve been here for over three years, and have seen many trolls come and go. I’ll still be here, after you’ve decided on some more important target, and so will the others. We have the patience to wait you out. We waited for six years to resume control, and we’ve got a mission to restore this country to the America we once knew and still love.
And I’m still Barfly.
Comment by barfly
January 17th, 2007 at 5:05 ambarfly:
No problemo,my man: Live and learn.
And P.S.; I forgot to mention ‘Smendrick’ as another name this troll posts under.
January 17th, 2007 at 5:16 amIn case there is still those who miss SANTO;well,now we have PAT.
Comment by rachel b blair
Comment by careful now
Comment by Sir Greg Nevins
Comment by Jewish Liberator
Comment by Jews are Gods chosen people —
These are all the meta-troll, TA.
Now that I know what to look for . . .
January 17th, 2007 at 5:32 amThe only trial I want to see is Bush and Cheney and the rest of the bunch charged with High Treason for Crimes Against Humanity for causing 9/11 and prompting this phoney baloney war on Terrorism.
Bush et al are the terrorists!
January 17th, 2007 at 8:21 amdamn trolls. Can’t TP just ban the IP addresses of those who post in multiple personas? If rachel is posting like this she should be banned as all trolls who do this should. Why should she be wasting bandwith with all her nonsense? Many of us are having problems posting and the troll is getting through non-stop.
January 17th, 2007 at 9:11 amI trust Zooey, Trueblue and unbelievable. Its the troll with many names I don’t trust. She’s a rabble rouser, that is all.
January 17th, 2007 at 9:16 amThere are quite a few of us who are sick and tired of the trolls.
January 17th, 2007 at 9:18 amAnd sick and tired of TP’s inaction.
I trust Zooey, Trueblue and unbelievable. Its the troll with many names I don’t trust. She’s a rabble rouser, that is all.
Comment by freebird9
Don’t forget Robert — he’s trustworthy, too.
January 17th, 2007 at 10:19 amTP can at least delete the long troll post droppings on here > please!
January 17th, 2007 at 10:30 amI wonder if anyone will ask mr Stimson why he said what he said? Since those are not his beliefs and they are not the pentagons beliefs why did he say what he said and whose beliefs was he articulating?
January 17th, 2007 at 11:21 amHere I thought stonewalling was the preferred method of lying about something you didn’t want to discuss. How many times have we heard the refrain “I don’t recall” used when that answer fails the smell test. Libby fell off the wagon and now is being held accountable. I think jurors will be able to see through the spin about all of the other pressing work Libby was engaged in. For a period, the only pressing work Libby was engaged in was discrediting Joseph Wilson and this plumb about his wife was deemed the best vehicle they had for doing that.
January 17th, 2007 at 11:30 amTP can at least delete the long troll post droppings on here > please!
Comment by Jay Randal
They would need to delete the long-winded rants from your side as well. Right?
January 17th, 2007 at 11:42 am#43, The problem is not the long-winded rants in and of themselves, it’s the pointlessness, the repeating of debunked lies, etc. Have you seen the drivel that ‘Sir’ Greg Nevins and his ilk post? It’s just shouting insults, there’s nothing substantive, and no response makes any difference. One cannot have any kind of real discussion. Now we’ve got these other trolls picking out regular posters to annoy. This is bullshite.
January 17th, 2007 at 1:44 pm