Libby Jury Picked -- Includes Retired 'Wash Post' Reporter

[deminks]

WASHINGTON A jury that includes four critics of the Bush administration's Iraq policies was seated Monday to try former White House aide "Scooter" Libby on charges of lying about what he told reporters concerning the wife of a prominent war opponent.

The jury of nine women and three men was seated after a nearly hourlong court session that was as silent as a professional chess match. Prosecutors and defense attorneys consulted in whispers, then handed papers to the clerk to exercise their 20 unexplained strikes of potential jurors.


The jury includes a retired Washington Post reporter who once worked for Post editor Bob Woodward and was a neighbor of NBC reporter Tim Russert, both of whom are to be witnesses in the case.

The contentious four-day jury selection, which took twice as long as the judge predicted, foreshadows a heated trial set to the backdrop of the war in Iraq.

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003535948

[rusty charly]

1. 12 angry men, anyone?

[gratuitous]

2. "Foreshadows a heated trial"

Got that right; we're just fighting to re-establish the rule of law in this country. Scooter and his accomplices are fighting for their political lives and to keep their miserable hides out federal ass-pounding prison (Office Space movie reference). They're not going to go gently or easily, but like the rabid little wolverines they are, they must be excised from our society. It won't be easy or pretty, but I have to hope that the prosecuting attorneys have the belly for the fight.

[Richard Steele]

3. We have a JUROR who worked for one witness, and lived next to another?

WTF is up with that?

[Tatiana]

4. If Fitz is OK with it, then I'm OK.

I was particularly impressed with the gentleman's comments about finding out the truth.

[Richard Steele]

5. That's a fine point you raise. Makes me feel much better. Thanks!

His record really is SERIOUSLY impressive. I _do_ know that.

So, if he doesn't have a problem with this, then
logically I have to trust his judgement. I'd have to
be a LOT dumber than I am to think I was smarter than Fitz.

[Tatiana]

6. More about that juror (and his connection to Pincus):

A former reporter for the Washington Post who worked for Bob Woodward in the mid 1980’s. Until six months ago, he shared an alley with Tim Russert, another witness in the case. He is also friends with Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus, who wrote an article that may be introduced as evidence in the case. The former reporter said his approach to issues of “credibility” is that “you don’t take anybody’s word for anything until you get the facts.” The man was an articulate and fairly colorful figure... He was asked if he had ever been arrested and replied, “In 1970 or 1971 during a May Day (peace) parade.” Asked if he had any bad feelings about that episode, he replied, “Well, the guy next to me took my food.” The man talked repeatedly about his career as a journalist and his desire to “get things right” and seek out “the truth.”

http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/01/22/38403.aspx

More on Pincus from the U.S. V Libby indictment:

Prior to June 12, 2003, Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus contacted the Office of the Vice President in connection with a story he was writing about Wilson's trip. LIBBY participated in discussions in the Office of the Vice President concerning how to respond to Pincus.

(It seems to me that Pincus was not, in this case, "friendly" to the administration. Otherwise, Libby would have just given him the WH spin. But instead, he had to consult with the VP and others about how to respond to Pincus... which leads me to believe Pincus was digging and they (meaning Cheney, Scooter, likely Hadley and others) were trying to form their game plan to neutralize the truth Joe Wilson discovered in his trip to Niger.)

On June 12, 2003, the Washington Post published an article by reporter Walter Pincus about Wilson's trip to Niger, which described Wilson as a retired ambassador but not by name, and reported that the CIA had sent him to Niger after an aide to the Vice President raised questions about purported Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium. Pincus's article questioned the accuracy of the "sixteen words," and stated that the retired ambassador had reported to the CIA that the uranium purchase story was false.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801086.html

I'm SURE this guy, who is *FRIENDS* with Pincus knows a good portion of the facts in this case. In other words, he knows Libby is a LIAR who participated in an orchestrated effort to smear both Joe and Valerie Wilson.

[sofa king]

7. I'm not so sure I'm okay with Fitz.

To use a baseball metaphor, which he apparently likes, he has focused all of his attention on Shoeless Joe Jackson's bookie for lying to investigators about throwing the 1919 World Series while allowing the rest of the Chicago Black Sox to return for another season, completely unpunished and unrepentant.

Where's the effing justice in that?

[Tatiana]

9. It's no different than prosecuting Mafia figures for tax evasion.

As a prosecutor, you have to look at your evidence and decide which charges will guarantee a conviction. It's obvious Libby lied. Fitzgerald, in my opinion, has meticulously documented events and without hearing opening arguments or cross-examination... just a cursory read of the indictment leads me to believe Libby is toast. He faces a maximum of 30 years in prison and up to a $1.25 million fine. That's a stiff penalty if he is convicted.

However, if Fitz decided to pursue the leak angle (which I think Libby's team was preparing for), there is a possibility that reasonable doubt is raised and Libby gets off or there's a hung jury. Will Libby fall on his sword and face 30 years in prison to protect Cheney? I'm betting he won't and he'll offer up enough information to cut a deal in exchange for fingering other administration officials. This is classic prosecutorial strategy.

I don't know if it will work (i.e. Libby will provide enough information for Fitzgerald to indict Cheney) or if we'll just have to accept a Libby conviction. But I can't fault Fitzgerald for strategy, because he seems to be playing this intelligently. There have been no leaks from his office and Fitzgerald seems to be conducting himself very methodically and professionally.

It can't be easy investigating and going up against this group of characters. I got the sense that Fitzgerald wasn't just thinking about Libby when he used his baseball analogy. I'm sure many individuals supportive of Bush/Cheney have been throwing sand in his eyes, so to speak. He's digging and he's uncovered a lot. However, it's obvious he needs a bit more to connect the dots, with respect to other high crimes and misdemeanors committed out of the Office of the Vice President and/or the White House in general.

Ashcroft recused himself for a reason and it wasn't just conflict of interest, because that hadn't bothered him before. He was afraid of something. Fitzgerald's measured, methodical and patient approach is the best way to handle things, in my opinion. Coming in with guns blazing would likely have backfired.

[chelsea0011]

8. Regardless if you like Fitz, if you have associated with any

witnesses or know anyone affiliated with a trial, that is almost a certain dismissal. If anyone has sat on a jury or been in the jury pool, my experience has always been that they ask you if you know anyone in the court or anyone who may come before the court in the case before you. If you answer yes, your next trip is to the judge where you are told to head out this court and back to the jury pool for maybe another call for another case.

[LizW]

11. It's weird

I've never heard of a trial where a friend and neighbor of central witnesses was left on the jury.

Is Washington so tiny and incestuous that they couldn't find 36 people in the whole district who didn't know someone involved in the case?

Bizarre.

[PCIntern]

10. I can hear the case for the Appeal now:

"The jury pool was tainted and we have reason to believe..."

Recall the OJ trial when the judge let the prosecution put on the phlebotomist (sp?) video without any possibility of a cross-examination by the defense. Had OJ been convicted, it would have been almost certain that this would have been used as grounds (among others) for appeal.