PDA

View Full Version : Libby Jury Selection


Katana
17th January 2007, 07:14 AM
Former White House aide "Scooter" Libby is looking for potential jurors who trust Vice President Dick Cheney.

Cheney's credibility has emerged as a key issue in the jury selection phase of the CIA leak trial. He is expected to be called as a witness on behalf of his former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, who is accused of lying to investigators about his conversations with journalists regarding an outed CIA officer.

"I don't have the highest opinion of him," a young financial analyst said. "If I had to rank people as to credibility, I wouldn't put him at the top of the list."

He was dismissed, as was a young woman who said she was "completely without objectivity" about Bush administration officials who might be called to testify.

"There is nothing they could say or do that would make me think anything positive about them," the woman said moments before she was excused from the jury pool by U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton.

Link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16668211/)

No wonder they think that the jury selection will take months.

daredelvis
17th January 2007, 07:57 AM
What kind of jury will they end up seating? I think the prosecutor could reasonably dismiss anyone who thinks the V.P. has a shred of credibility. That would be a position not supported by facts.

This also gives me a chance to point out once again (I can't recall who said it) that "The guy Cheaney shot in the face likes him more then 82% of Americans.".

Daredelvis

BPSCG
17th January 2007, 08:22 AM
2004 presidential election popular vote, District of Columbia:

John F. Kerry/ John Edwards - 89.2%
George W. Bush/ Dick Cheney - 9.3%I don't think I'm going out on a limb here in saying that Bush and Cheney are probably less popular today among the registered voters (= jury pool) of the District of Columbia than they were in November, 2004. So finding a jury for this trial may take decades. Imagine - your unborn grandchildren may someday sit on that jury.

I remember when people were complaining about the waste of taxpayer money when Kenneth Starr was conducting his special prosecutor's investigation of whatshisname. No such complaints today, even though the only guy who's standing trial for this silly little affair wasn't the guy who outed Valerie Plame, and wasn't a newspaper reporter or columnist who published her name. Funny, that.

davefoc
17th January 2007, 08:30 AM
I remember when people were complaining about the waste of taxpayer money when Kenneth Starr was conducting his special prosecutor's investigation of whatshisname. No such complaints today, even though the only guy who's standing trial for this silly little affair wasn't the guy who outed Valerie Plame, and wasn't a newspaper reporter or columnist who published her name. Funny, that.

When I first saw this Republican spin I thought it was a joke. The total justification for the Clinton impeachment was perjury. It wasn't about the underlying crime at all, because there was no underlying crime. Get it. Perjury just by itself, was such a bad thing that it justified impeaching the president.

Now the new Republican spin is that perjury concerning the outing of covert agents isn't so bad because why? Exactly how would the Republican partisans like to see cases like this prosecuted when everybody lies as part of the cover up?

Cleon
17th January 2007, 08:36 AM
I remember when people were complaining about the waste of taxpayer money when Kenneth Starr was conducting his special prosecutor's investigation of whatshisname. No such complaints today, even though the only guy who's standing trial for this silly little affair wasn't the guy who outed Valerie Plame, and wasn't a newspaper reporter or columnist who published her name. Funny, that.

Ah. A lovely bit of propaganda, Beeps. I'm impressed--you did an excellent job of trying to "expose" hypocrisy based on two completely different situations.

Now, let's look at some actual facts, shall we? Here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14927533)'s a link from this past September--the 3.5-year investigation cost about $1.5 million as of the date of that article. Even if that cost has doubled since then, that means that the leak probe has cost a whopping $3 million over a 3.5 year investigation. AND--here's the real kicker--there's an actual TRIAL involved. They investigated a particular crime, and brought charges.

Now, let's look at the Starr investigation. $64 million! Holy subpoena, batman! And this is money spent to try and find ANYTHING that Clinton did wrong--without any culminating trial. They best they got was that he was getting "serviced" by a somewhat unattractive intern.

And you say it's WEIRD that people aren't as up in arms about the cost of the leak probe as they were for Starr's witch hunt? Yeah, I can't imagine why THAT is...There's certainly no rational explanation for it. :rolleyes:

specious_reasons
17th January 2007, 08:46 AM
I remember when people were complaining about the waste of taxpayer money when Kenneth Starr was conducting his special prosecutor's investigation of whatshisname. No such complaints today, even though the only guy who's standing trial for this silly little affair wasn't the guy who outed Valerie Plame, and wasn't a newspaper reporter or columnist who published her name. Funny, that.

Nope, he was just one of the people who tried to disrupt the investigation into a felony. From what I heard on the radio (NPR, so assume whatever bias you want), Karl Rove isn't on trial because he recanted the testimony that was similar to Libby's.

My personal opinion is that proving the original crime, as the law is worded, is nearly impossible. I think the prosecutor would have had to prove that Rove, Armitage et al, knew Plame's status. Makes it a bad law, but I don't think it makes the act less disgraceful.

BPSCG
17th January 2007, 09:09 AM
Exactly how would the Republican partisans like to see cases like this prosecuted when everybody lies as part of the cover up?Sorry, the Conspiracy Theories forum is over that way --->

BPSCG
17th January 2007, 09:12 AM
And you say it's WEIRD that people aren't as up in arms about the cost of the leak probe as they were for Starr's witch hunt? Yeah, I can't imagine why THAT is...There's certainly no rational explanation for it. :rolleyes:So your issue with the Starr investigation wasn't that it was a waste of money, but rather that it wasted too much taxpayer money. Whereas you're okay with the Libby investigation and trial, because it's only wasted a little taxpayer money.

Let me know when you think it's wasted too much.

Ziggurat
17th January 2007, 09:18 AM
Nope, he was just one of the people who tried to disrupt the investigation into a felony.

You mean the investigation into a possible felony.

specious_reasons
17th January 2007, 10:14 AM
You mean the investigation into a possible felony.

You are correct. That somehow excuses the behavior?

BPSCG
17th January 2007, 10:54 AM
You are correct. That somehow excuses the behavior?No. He was stupid. If he'd gone to Martha Stewart's School of Hard Knocks, he would have learned lesson one: When federal investigators come asking questions, lawyer up.

BTW, how come the guy who did out Valerie Plame, Richard Armitage, isn't on trial?

Cleon
17th January 2007, 11:18 AM
So your issue with the Starr investigation...

No, BPSCG. My issues with the Starr investigation are many, and not really relevant.

I was merely pointing out that your attempt to draw some sort of equivalence between the Starr witch hunt and the leak investigation was ridiculous and not based on any actual facts.

Ziggurat
17th January 2007, 11:28 AM
You are correct. That somehow excuses the behavior?

I made no claim in that regard. I just wanted to correct the record.

BPSCG
17th January 2007, 11:29 AM
No, BPSCG. My issues with the Starr investigation are many, and not really relevant.Well, you did write a fairly lengthy post in which it figured prominently, so...
I was merely pointing out that your attempt to draw some sort of equivalence between the Starr witch hunt and the leak investigation was ridiculous and not based on any actual facts.And your salient point in that post was that the Starr investigation was a huge waste of money, and that the Libby investigation and trial are a much smaller waste of money. I therefore conclude that either 1) you don't have a problem with wasting taxpayer money, as long as the amount isn't too much, or, 2) you don't have a problem with wasting taxpayer money, as long as it's being wasted on prosecuting someone whose politics you don't like.

Which is it?

Cleon
17th January 2007, 11:34 AM
Well, you did write a fairly lengthy post in which it figured prominently, so...
And your salient point in that post was that the Starr investigation was a huge waste of money, and that the Libby investigation and trial are a much smaller waste of money. I therefore conclude that either 1) you don't have a problem with wasting taxpayer money, as long as the amount isn't too much, or, 2) you don't have a problem with wasting taxpayer money, as long as it's being wasted on prosecuting someone whose politics you don't like.

Which is it?

So either you didn't bother to read my post, or you're trying to change the subject now that you've figured out that your original point was horsecrap.

OK, fine, Beeps. Just go on spewing whatever BS comes to mind, and don't bother with facts.

BPSCG
17th January 2007, 11:47 AM
So either you didn't bother to read my post, or you're trying to change the subject now that you've figured out that your original point was horsecrap.Actually, I read your post over again to make sure I hadn't missed anything important before I responded to it. And by far the most important point you were making was that the Starr investigation was a much bigger waste of money than the Libby one.

Or do you not think the Libby investigation/trial is a waste of money, even though Richard Armitage has confessed he "outed" Plame?

ImaginalDisc
17th January 2007, 01:06 PM
Actually, I read your post over again to make sure I hadn't missed anything important before I responded to it. And by far the most important point you were making was that the Starr investigation was a much bigger waste of money than the Libby one.

Or do you not think the Libby investigation/trial is a waste of money, even though Richard Armitage has confessed he "outed" Plame?

You are aware that Libby lied to Federal investigators, right? He was indited for two counts of making false statements, two counts of perjury, and one count of obstruction of justice. Do you realize the difference between a partisan investigation that spends 64 million dollars and yields no charges, and one that spends little more than 1.5 million dollars and yields five charges and a trial?

P.S. Every charge he faces carries a $250,000 fine. The tax payers might even recoup most of the costs on this one.

Dr Adequate
17th January 2007, 01:32 PM
I remember when people were complaining about the waste of taxpayer money when Kenneth Starr was conducting his special prosecutor's investigation of whatshisname. No such complaints today, even though the only guy who's standing trial for this silly little affair wasn't the guy who outed Valerie Plame, and wasn't a newspaper reporter or columnist who published her name. Funny, that. I remember when people said that Kenneth Starr conducting his special prosecutor's investigation of whatshisname was an appropriate use of taxpayer money. No such plaudits now, even though this investigation resulted in charges being brought. Funny, that.

Darth Rotor
17th January 2007, 02:03 PM
BTW, how come the guy who did out Valerie Plame, Richard Armitage, isn't on trial?
Good question, though it does not excuse Libby his apparent skullduggery.

IIRC, after Armitage came forward with a mea culpa, I seem to recall a Justice Department comment that he need not be charged, due to error or whatever, but a quick google didn't confirm that.

DR

BPSCG
17th January 2007, 03:09 PM
You are aware that Libby lied to Federal investigators, right? Yes, I am, which is why I said earlier:

No. He was stupid. If he'd gone to Martha Stewart's School of Hard Knocks, he would have learned lesson one: When federal investigators come asking questions, lawyer up.
He was indited for two counts of making false statements, two counts of perjury, and one count of obstruction of justice. Do you realize the difference between a partisan investigation that spends 64 million dollars and yields no charges, and one that spends little more than 1.5 million dollars and yields five charges and a trial?Whereas if he had lawyered up, there would have been no charges or a trial. His crime was not in outing Plame. His crime was in lying in the investigation, which itself turned up no other crime, including the outing of Plame, even though we have a public confession from the guy who did it. If Armitage had said from the get-go, "Yeah, I blew her cover - sorry 'bout that," where would we be today? Would he be on trial?

This trial ain't over yet, either. It'll end up costing a lot more. As I asked Cleon, are you okay with a waste of taxpayer money as long as it's not too much, or is it that you're okay with it as long as you don't like the politics of the guy being prosecuted?

Darth Rotor
17th January 2007, 03:30 PM
Yes, I am, which is why I said earlier:


Whereas if he had lawyered up, there would have been no charges or a trial. His crime was not in outing Plame. His crime was in lying in the investigation, which itself turned up no other crime, including the outing of Plame, even though we have a public confession from the guy who did it. If Armitage had said from the get-go, "Yeah, I blew her cover - sorry 'bout that," where would we be today? Would he be on trial?

This trial ain't over yet, either. It'll end up costing a lot more. As I asked Cleon, are you okay with a waste of taxpayer money as long as it's not too much, or is it that you're okay with it as long as you don't like the politics of the guy being prosecuted?
Libby is a juicy target, being one of the VP's staff. As a member of that staff, he's held to a high standard of integrity, or should be, given the gravity of his duties to the VP. If he thinks it is appropriate to make false official statements while he is an active member of the VP's staff, then as I see it he needs to go, and VP Cheney should have fired him for sullying the VP's office and rep. That he didn't puzzles me.

Libby can do his time, as Martha did.

DR

Cleon
17th January 2007, 04:15 PM
As I asked Cleon, are you okay with a waste of taxpayer money as long as it's not too much, or is it that you're okay with it as long as you don't like the politics of the guy being prosecuted?


And my response is: No, I've never beaten my wife.

davefoc
17th January 2007, 05:47 PM
I enjoyed this article on the jury selection that's going on:
http://www.slate.com/id/2157695/entry/2157720/

I don't think it supports a particular view, I just enjoyed it and link to it as a for what it is worth gesture.

For people who don't feel like reading the whole thing I particularly enjoyed this response by a potential juror on Dick Cheney:

..."I'm not sure of his health as serving vice president with his heart, and I'm not sure I would like to go bird-hunting with him, either." Nearly everyone in the courtroom laughed. Libby put his head in his hand and smiled. Patrick Fitzgerald, a Joe Friday type, did not smile. His staff kept straight faces, too. Before the man left the witness stand he showed the judge pictures of his grandchildren.

fishbob
18th January 2007, 08:35 AM
. . . "Yeah, I blew her cover . . . . . .
Looks like a clear case of subliminally shameless equating the whatsisname investigation with Libby.

Learning Phase
18th January 2007, 05:36 PM
Not only is Armitage not charged, it's impossible to charge armitage and they know it. Valerie Plame simply wasn't undercover, so there's no crime.

Her neighbors knew she worked for the CIA.
Heck, Everyone knew she worked for the CIA.

What's upsetting is that the investigators knew for TWO YEARS that Armitage was the one who spread the (not illegal to spread) info and they still spent time investigating.

So they had the culprit for a crime that didn't occur...

And still ended up with Libby lying to cover himself when he's not guilty. Not smart, Scoot.

Jail Libby, and jail the prosecutor.

davefoc
18th January 2007, 05:53 PM
Not only is Armitage not charged, it's impossible to charge armitage and they know it. Valerie Plame simply wasn't undercover, so there's no crime.

Her neighbors knew she worked for the CIA.
Heck, Everyone knew she worked for the CIA.

What's upsetting is that the investigators knew for TWO YEARS that Armitage was the one who spread the (not illegal to spread) info and they still spent time investigating.

So they had the culprit for a crime that didn't occur...

And still ended up with Libby lying to cover himself when he's not guilty. Not smart, Scoot.

Jail Libby, and jail the prosecutor.

I think most of what you said above is pure crap. I know it's said all over the internet but I'll bet you can't find a single reliable source for most of it. I suggest you are the dupe of a big lie campaign concerning the Plame affair calculating carried on by administration water carriers and orchestrated by a sophisticated Republican spin machine. (and I'm a registered Republican)

I'll stand back and agree to admit the error of my ways if you can show some evidence.

Learning Phase
18th January 2007, 08:20 PM
I think most of what you said above is pure crap. I know it's said all over the internet but I'll bet you can't find a single reliable source for most of it. I suggest you are the dupe of a big lie campaign concerning the Plame affair calculating carried on by administration water carriers and orchestrated by a sophisticated Republican spin machine. (and I'm a registered Republican)

I'll stand back and agree to admit the error of my ways if you can show some evidence.

Instead of doing a "David Letterman" and saying that something's "60% crap", point out what's wrong.


Armitage has been charged? When?

Valerie Plame was undercover?

No one knew she worked for the CIA?

Libby didn't lie? Libby outed her? C'mon, which is it?


Which point was untrue?


I love this "vast conspiracy" stuff.

Darth Rotor
18th January 2007, 08:28 PM
Armitage has been charged? When?

Valerie Plame was undercover?

No one knew she worked for the CIA?

Libby didn't lie? Libby outed her? C'mon, which is it?


A friend of mine at the office made the following observation.

The Dept Of Justice has a motivation, under Atty Genl Gonzalez as a loyal cabinet officer, to get this Libby matter suitcased, tried, a conviction found on a perjury charge or a few of the others listed above, and the matter dispensed with . . . meaning off the front pages of the papers.

A limited and focused prosecution will likely be undertaken, a sentence (short) assigned, and hands dusted off, backs patted for a job well done.

Scooter will keep his mouth shut on all manner of inner workings of Cheneyland, and he'll be rewarded after his sentence with a sinecure somewhere among the party faithful.

The more I thought about it, the more it makes sense to me. And the more I ground my teeth.

DR

Learning Phase
18th January 2007, 08:39 PM
The more I thought about it, the more it makes sense to me. And the more I ground my teeth.

DR


Makes sense to me.

I'm no fan of the Bush administration. I just don't understand how people think that somehow a Dem administration is going to be squeaky clean. This is how it's been done forever: Back deals, shady practices, people going to jail, while the real criminals stay outside and laugh.

But the whole thing stinks if Armitage doesn't get charged. Someone who has nothing to do with the purported central "crime" goes to jail while the admitted perpetrator is forgiven because he "didn't mean to do it".