the Juror…

Posted on Tuesday 6 March 2007


… He was a very thoughtful guy who said the jury was very serious and took their responsibility very seriously, and that there were many tears at the end.

… He said that this was true and that the first thing they did was fill out 34 or so of the huge "post it" pads (2′ x 3′) with names, dates and details.

… He said the other jurors may want to talk to the press at some point but for now they did not want to be identified. He was very impressed with how methodical they were and he used the word "dispassionate" to describe their deliberations. He said they deliberated for a whole week before they reached a verdict on any of the charges.

… He eventually got dragged before the cameras and said that there was a lot of compassion on the jury for Libby, that they felt he was the"fallguy," and they wanted to know where Karl Rove was in all of this.

… He was loathe to answer questions about Dick Cheney beyond the fact that Libby was obviously doing whatever he did at Cheney’s behest, and the Cheney notes on the Wilson July 6 article seemed especially damning.

… He did say that Hannah’s testimony totally screwed Libby, and I got a chuckle out of that. At the same time Hannah was talking about how bad Libby’s memory was, he also claimed that Libby had an incredible grasp of detail, and the jury believed he just would not have forgotten so much in the way that the defense was trying to claim.

… They found Russert to be a credible witness but thought there was enough reasonable doubt in the Cooper false statement charge (he said/he said) for "someone" to assume reasonable doubt. It appears there was only one holdout on Count Three that kept Libby from a 5 count grand slam.
Watching the juror being interviewed after the Libby Trial was the most interesting part for me. He’d been inside the whole time, away from the media and the pundit’s take on the case. While he talked about the lawyer’s performances, the judge, the way the case was presented on both sides, it was obvious that the Jury was mostly focused on the evidence that was presented to them, not how it was spun. I didn’t hear him talking about Wells grilling Russert, or the attempted "memory defense" using John Hannah. And he didn’t talk much about whether the Jury thought any of the witnesses lied. They were focused on whether or not Scooter Libby lied [good on them since that’s what the case was about!]. I surmised, from what he said, that the deciding point in the whole story was Libby’s [absurd] assertion that he didn’t know about Joseph Wilson’s wife’s C.I.A. status from June 12th when he was told by Vice President Cheney until July 10th when he claimed he was told [again] by Tim Russert. And the Juror mentioned repeatedly Libby’s saying he was surprised when he heard it from Tim Russert. The case apparently did not hinge only on the difference between Russert’s and Libby’s account of their conversation. The juror was saying that even if Russert had told Libby about Valerie Plame, Libby was still lying, and he was lying in order to obstruct justice.

On her own blog, Jane Hamsher said, " It’s a good day to be an American, huh?" Well put. Myself, I’m a little speechless. I’m not sure what I feel, except relieved that I’m not feeling what I’d feel if the decision had gone the other way – an emotion that I’ve come to call the election night 2004 feeling, because I’ve only felt it once in my life. Mostly, I wonder what the people who elected President Bush and opened the door for this cadre of neoconservatives are feeling about all of this. They didn’t pore over the minute to minute testimony in the trial from emptywheel‘s daily live-blog. They haven’t read Libby’s notes, or seen the annotations on the newspaper articles, or parsed the timeline of leak week. They don’t know first-hand the levels of deceit, deviousness, and vengfulness that was presented as fact in this trial. All they know is the verdict. I hope in the days that follow, the Media finally puts this information on the front page for everyone to deal with. "News" is literally what is new. For most of us Plame junkies, this is a very old story. For most Americans, it’s brand new.

  1.  
    Vanessa
    March 6, 2007 | 10:30 PM
     

    That Libby juror asked the right question: where’s Karl?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDaRFf7Cd6M From Americablog.

  2.  
    March 7, 2007 | 7:13 PM
     

    Vanessa,

    Where indeed? I read today that during the trial, the Roves had the Bushs over for ‘quail and sausage.’

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.