Jury is Deliberating in Scooter Libby Trial

Marcy (Empty Wheel)was in the media room and courtroom today live-blogging at Firedoglake and watching the jury and lawyers.

I just received this email from DOJ spokesman Randall Samborn:

Mr. Fitzgerald will not be available after a verdict for one-on-one interviews or talk shows. We do anticipate that he will speak to the media after a verdict outside the Courthouse.

My main question which I hope a reporter asks: Is this investigation over? I sure hope the answer is "no."

Due to the length of Scooter's grand jury testimony and the voluminous exhibits introduced, I would not be surprised if this jury doesn't come back before Friday. I'm not going to make a prediction for conviction or acquittal. But, I do think a very fast verdict means acquittal and a very prolonged one means a split (compromise) verdict or a hung jury.

< Cognitive Dissonance: The Constitution, Habeas, the Unitary Executive and Congressional Power | Off Again, Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    reposting from below (none / 0) (#1)
    by Coyoteville on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 12:58:07 PM EST

    I unlurked and registered to make this comment.

    I understand you had to leave the courthouse yesterday to catch a plane, and therefore missed Fitzgerald's summary. My reading of it was that it certainly was emotional, as well as logical, and clearly aimed at the bigger "conspirator" - i.e. Cheney.

    As for Wells, if you'd watched last night's PoliticsTV with Redd, Jane and Marcy, you'd have picked up that Wells' crying jag is a well-worn part of his schtick. Apparently reporters in the courthouse were voting on whether his performance was better or worse than his in other trials, and they all took the position "worse".

    I was there for Fitz' summary (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 01:20:46 PM EST
    I left at 4:30. I thought Fitz talked too fast -- faster than the jury could listen. I did watch the Politics TV. I thought Wells was genuine in his outrage and his frustration and in his tear.  But then, I'm a criminal defense lawyer and I know how personally we take trials and how we bond with our clients.  

    We're a whole different breed than prosecutors and even most ex-prosectutors who later become defense lawyers.

    I agree Wells was off his game, I said his argument was unfocused and scattered. I criticized him for reading off his powerpoint slides.

    But I'd bet the emotion in it reached at least one juror. Whether it's enough to overcome the Government's logic is something we'll all find out soon.

    You have a lot of right wing fans (none / 0) (#3)
    by MiddleOfTheRoad on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 02:44:33 PM EST

    You have a lot of new right wing fans who read your article at Huffingtonpost.  Could you convince them on the superiority of your arguments about Iraq, Gitmo, defendant rights, etc :)


    Fitz & Wells (none / 0) (#5)
    by Coyoteville on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 04:16:41 PM EST
    Thanks for responding. My own personal bias is much more on the defense attorney side vs. the prosecution, but in THIS case ...

    I like the irony that when the current Repugs. are finally dragged into court, that they tend to hire "the best" trial lawyers, many (most) of whom are Democrats, like Mr. Wells in this case.


    talk shows.... (none / 0) (#4)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 03:29:04 PM EST
    I hope you are following up on that email.... i have the feeling that TeamFitz is fully aware of the work being done by you and the folks at Firedoglake, and that Fitz would be happy for a sit-down (on politics TV) with someone like you, or Marcy, or Christy, or Ariana....or participate in a "blog interview"....

    I'd have to guess that (none / 0) (#6)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 07:57:22 AM EST
    "will not be available after a verdict for one-on-one interviews or talk shows" is self-explanatory.

    Even were it not, it seems HIGHLY unlikely that given a prosecutor's ethical duties regarding public discussion that he would answer any questions that most people consider the most intriguiing in a meaningful way.

     He might answer the "is the investigation over" question, and he might even give the desired answer in one word. But, it seems certain that something very dramatic and very unexpected would have to occur for the investigation, if it continues, to result in any charges against anyone high (or formerly so) in the Administration.