Libby Trial, Day Two: Watch Out for Juror No. 0677

For coverage of the first day of the Libby trial and a deconstruction of Scooter Libby's I-forgot defense, click here.

The second day of the trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was again devoted to selecting a jury. The task at hand remains finding sixteen Washington residents (twelve jurors and four alternates) who hold no harsh opinions about the credibility of the Bush administration--particularly that of Vice President Dick Cheney, who has been named by the defense as a possible witness for his former chief of staff. The quickest way off this jury has been to admit one possesses strong doubts about Bush crowd's honesty in selling the case for war in Iraq. Juror No. 1298 said that she liked "to think" she could be "mature enough" to allow her respect for the presumption of innocence to trump her concerns about the Bush administration. But when federal district court Judge Reggie Walton asked if a witness from the Bush administration would have a "strike against them," she replied, "Probably." He responded, "We appreciate you being here." In other words, you can go now. Juror No. 1980 bluntly said, "I cannot believe any statement from the Bush administration." She was told her services would no longer be needed.

Of the first 24 potential jurors questioned by the judge, the prosecutors and the defense attorneys, eight were dismissed. (Some had reasons for being let go besides being administration critics.) A few who mildly expressed questions about the Bush administration--but who claimed they could still fairly evaluate the testimony of Cheney or any other Bush administration witness--were allowed to proceed to the second round. Yet Libby's attorneys will later be able to remove them from the juror with preemptory challenges.

It could well be that the jury ends up with no members who suspect that the Bush White House deliberately misrepresented the case for war. Can someone who holds such a view not fairly assess the testimony and evidence in the case of a senior Bush administration official charged with lying to the FBI and a grand jury? What if a potential juror enters the courtroom with the firm belief that Cheney and other Bush aides are believable? Would that not be a bias that would create a disadvantage for the prosecution?

One potential juror who handles information technology business development at Lockheed Martin noted that she respects the commander in chief and Bush's "reasons for going to Iraq." She explained that citizens outside the government are not privy to enough information to second-guess such presidential decision-making. Is that not a prejudice (perhaps an unhealthy one) in favor of Bush administration officials? She also said that she is currently chasing a billion dollars in federal contracts for Lockheed Martin. Might she have an interest in pleasing administration officials? She was not kicked out of the potential juror pool; special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald ought to take a closer look at her in the next round.

Lawyers and philosophers can debate what comprises bias and how to vet assumptions held by potential jurors. But it's certainly a gain for Libby that Washingtonians who believe the Bush administration misled the nation into war are not permitted to judge his actions.

And then there's Juror No. 0677. She is a television producer. She claimed she had paid attention to the case in a "circumfery" manner, and she has booked some of the journalists involved in the case. She was questioned about her ties to these reporters and whether she could evaluate their testimony without favor. She said yes. As for Cheney, she said, "I don't have any objective feelings about whether he would be more or less credible in this case."

She also mentioned that she was once an intern at the National Journalism Center and then an intern at The Washington Times, the conservative newspaper owned by Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church. There were no queries from the judge and lawyers about these connections. Yet might she be a conservative harboring pro-administration inclinations? Though the National Journalism Center has a bland name, it is a rightwing outfit that trains young conservative journalists and finds them jobs. Not all of its graduates are ideologically minded. But the group was launched in part by the American Conservative Union. It has received funding from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation and the John M. Olin Foundation, leading conservative foundations. (The John M. Olin Foundation funded itself out of business in 2005.) Several years ago, the National Journalism Center was taken over by another conservative group, the Young Americas Foundation.

Jurors ought not be blackballed for their political views. But if a National Journalism Center graduate makes it on to the jury, the Libby legal team would have reason to be pleased. Fitzgerald might want to ask her a few more questions.

******

DON"T FORGET ABOUT HUBRIS: THE INSIDE STORY OF SPIN, SCANDAL, AND THE SELLING OF THE IRAQ WAR, the best-selling book by David Corn and Michael Isikoff. Click here for information on the book. The New York Times calls Hubris "the most comprehensive account of the White House's political machinations" and "fascinating reading." The Washington Post says, "There have been many books about the Iraq war....This one, however, pulls together with unusually shocking clarity the multiple failures of process and statecraft." Tom Brokaw notes Hubris "is a bold and provocative book that will quickly become an explosive part of the national debate on how we got involved in Iraq." Hendrik Hertzberg, senior editor of The New Yorker notes, "The selling of Bush's Iraq debacle is one of the most important--and appalling--stories of the last half-century, and Michael Isikoff and David Corn have reported the hell out of it." For highlights from Hubris, click here.

Comments (39)

1. "Jurors ought not be blackballed for their political views."

   Well, if they weren't vetted properly Mr. Corn, no one would get a fair trial in this country regardless to how they feel about the current administration. Everybody deserves due process. You're innocent until proven guilty, like it or not.

   Posted by ACook at 01/17/2007 @ 7:56pm

2. Hmmm?...Is Mr Corn already building the "excuse case" for why Libby will walk?

   Posted by Mask at 01/17/2007 @ 7:57pm

3. The second day of the trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was again devoted to selecting a jury. The task at hand remains finding eighteen Washington residents (twelve jurors and six alternates) who hold no harsh opinions about the credibility of the Bush administration--particularly that of Vice President Dick Cheney . .

   Why don't they just restrict the jury pool to Fox News journalists? Who the hell ever heard of a requirement that a juror submit that they believe a witness is truthful before the witness even testifies?

   Posted by fromredbird at 01/17/2007 @ 7:57pm

4. "*There is a fundamental catch 22 - if you are rational, and reasonable, you will have a negative predisposition toward the White House and its contents. And you are disqualiified. If you are irrational, or just a True Believer, then you can be considered for jury duty. But, then, the jury in the trial is comprised of the minority of deeply unreasonable or just plain foolish people who favor the Bush team, meaning that there is not just a prejudice in favor of Libby and Cheney, but a lack of intelligence as well."

   Posted by ZERO 01/17/2007 @ 7:55pm

   Zero, you ought to stop telling fibs like that. Ever hear of extreme prejudice? A defendent has a right to a fair trial. Let the evidence presented by the DA to be based on the merits of the case, not on hearsay by the MSM.

   Posted by ACook at 01/17/2007 @ 8:04pm

5. Too much conjecture too early. Lets not turn it into a full blown circus just yet.

   Posted by crabwalk at 01/17/2007 @ 9:06pm

6. Rio, you of all people should not comment on assumed guilt. Supporter of indefinite confinement and torture, one who would ignore habeas corpus. Frightened one. Follower of lies.

   Posted by crabwalk at 01/17/2007 @ 9:19pm

7. yes, he is presumed innocent.yes this trial is a disaster for the mis-administration. every day for the next what, three months this will be all over the papers and the media.this is a gift that keeps on giving to the anti war movement. every day it will be did he lie, did Cheney lie? sweeet. a PR disaster for Bush, let's hope it's a nice long trial. the outcome? don't mean a thing if he's innocent, the damage will have been done. a pardon? very bad news for Bush, very bad.

   Posted by johannesrolf at 01/17/2007 @ 11:37pm

8. as far as preemptory challenges, they are limited. they won't be able to keep reasonable people off the jury. very bad scene for the Bush-man

   Posted by johannesrolf at 01/17/2007 @ 11:39pm

9. You keyboard junkies need a life!!! Assholes that post minutes after an article can go FUCK YOURSELVES!!! Eat steamy Bush shit and I am a proud low class american like you all dumb motherfuckers...

   Posted by tleviness at 01/18/2007 @ 02:13am

10. Some people here do blather on about Libby's presumption of innocence...that would be true if he was not getting a prejudicial jury pool. Because one doesn't support Bush administration by no means should exclude them from being on Scooter case. What you will end up with is a kangaroo court, with the outcome already clear if all the jurors are Bush enablers and excusers. For those wimps who worry about poor Scooter getting his just due, wouldn't worrying about the outcome become moot for them?

    A fair trial is when it works in your favor. That's the Bush lackey's formula...

    Posted by MCENJ at 01/18/2007 @ 04:23am

11. no "conservative" can ever again, after Bush, claim to be a proponent of any American principle of fair justice.

    Posted by ZERO 01/18/2007

    Here, here...that's why I find especially laughable those who worry that Scooter's case will be tarnished by an unfavorable jury pool. Seems so far that things are going Scooter's way. As Corn points out, Fitzgerald needs to nail this Lockheed juror bitch and the the other nitwit juror Corn buttonholes...knowing Fitz, he'll nail 'em good.

    Posted by MCENJ at 01/18/2007 @ 04:27am

12. Zero, you ought to stop telling fibs like that. Ever hear of extreme prejudice? A defendent has a right to a fair trial. Let the evidence presented by the DA to be based on the merits of the case, not on hearsay by the MSM.

    Posted by ACOOK

    Zero is precisely right in what he says. The jury pool will be tainted with Bush apologists if Fitz doesn't weed them out. Simple as that. Your presumption that fairness in a trial can happen in Bush's America is bizarre, unusually naive, and just plain Pollyannish. Countering the tricks and connivances of these people is not only essential, but required to save our justice system. If weeding out Bush lackeys is the answer, then so be it.

    Posted by MCENJ at 01/18/2007 @ 04:43am

13. Posted by MCENJ 01/18/2007 @ 04:43am

    As "ZERO's biggest fan", curious.....what's your view on Asian-Americans?

    Posted by Mask at 01/18/2007 @ 08:50am

14. Posted by TLEVINESS 01/18/2007 @ 02:13am | ignore this person

    what are you doing here? flinging excrement? it's all over your face.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/18/2007 @ 08:56am

15. remember the all white juries in the south in the 60s? murdering a black guy? no problem.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/18/2007 @ 08:57am

16. ZERO, AMEN!

    Not a stitch of credibility, just like their borg masters, Chimpy and Birdshot.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/18/2007 @ 09:35am

17. what does the administration have to do with scooter lying to prosocuters

    Posted by there ya go at 01/18/2007 @ 10:43am

18. what does the administration have to do with scooter lying to prosocuters

    Posted by THERE YA GO 01/18/2007 @ 10:43am | ignore this person

    are you fucking serious? he was a member of the administration. whatta stupid question.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/18/2007 @ 10:45am

19. it's pretty clear to me that Libby lied to protect his boss Cheney. that I forgot excuse is risible and will be ignored by any jury.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/18/2007 @ 10:48am

20. Again, I just come back to David Corn's "jury" argument.

    Are we looking at (full of more flowery rhetoric, of course) an article, after Libby goes free, from David Corn basically saying "Well, of course Libby wasn't convicted...they wouldn't allow anybody who knew he was guilty on the jury!!!"?

    Posted by Mask at 01/18/2007 @ 10:49am

21. "hey "acook" does the policy of secret detention and torture with no trial, human rights, or legal process of any sort, with no public oversight, constitute a breach of the notion "innocent until proven guilty" in your feeble mind?"

    Posted by ZERO 01/18/2007 @ 01:03am

    Earth to Zero, you really need to lay off that stuff you're smoking, it kills the brain cells. Your ramblings are totally irrelevant to Libby's case.

    Here's the reality...Libby has been indicted for lying to the FBI, not for revealing CIA Analyst Valarie Plame, and most certainly he has not been charged with the current administration's handling of the detainees at Gitmo or the war. He was Cheney's chief of staff, for crying out loud. He had no control over his former boss' final decisions. Besides, had you read the charges that was leveled against him, you would know better than to say something that off kilter. (But, then again your zero)

    Folks like you are a prime example of why no sane DA or defense attoney will ever put you on a jury. You completely show no objectivity.

    Posted by ACook at 01/18/2007 @ 11:44am

22. acook:".Libby has been indicted for lying to the FBI, "

    no he wasn't. he was indicted for lying to a grand jury. big difference. perhaps you should start smoking, or at least get your facts straight.pun intended.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/18/2007 @ 11:49am

23. Folks like you are a prime example of why no sane DA or defense attoney will ever put you on a jury. You completely show no objectivity.

    Posted by ACOOK 01/18/2007 @ 11:44am | ignore this person

    for me jury duty is a potential financial hardship. I miss work, I miss paycheck. here's what I do. I tell the judge that in any drug case I am unable to be impartial, as I believe drug abuse to be a medical rather than a criminal issue. also in any case of a worker against a boss, or insurance company etc, I am unable to be impartial, as my sympathies lie with the worker.

    that usually does the trick. also lawyers do not like to put smart, articulate people on the jury, they do not want a skeptical juror.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/18/2007 @ 11:54am

24. smoking weed of course, I abhor nicotine, a legal and very destructive drug.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/18/2007 @ 11:55am

25. The comments on the blog today remind me of the old joke: If a conservative is a liberal who has just been mugged, then a liberal is a conservative who has just been arrested.

    Posted by The Goods at 01/18/2007 @ 11:55am

26. "Zero is precisely right in what he says. The jury pool will be tainted with Bush apologists if Fitz doesn't weed them out. Simple as that. Your presumption that fairness in a trial can happen in Bush's America is bizarre, unusually naive, and just plain Pollyannish. Countering the tricks and connivances of these people is not only essential, but required to save our justice system. If weeding out Bush lackeys is the answer, then so be it."

    Posted by MCENJ 01/18/2007 @ 04:43am

    MCENJ, Zero is not right. Libby has a right, by law, to a fair trial, to be judged by a jury of his peers (not politics). To assert that there's something wrong with the justice system is incorrect also, it's the people who misuse and abuse the system, is where the real problem lies.

    Posted by ACook at 01/18/2007 @ 12:01pm

27. "no he wasn't. he was indicted for lying to a grand jury. big difference. perhaps you should start smoking, or at least get your facts straight.pun intended."

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/18/2007 @ 11:49am

    JR you are absolutely correct. I knew that and somehow I transposed my words.

    Posted by ACook at 01/18/2007 @ 12:04pm

28. "and, "acook", i know full well that you have neither the character nor the courage to honestly address what i just hit you with. no "conservative" has the character or courage to honestly address this issue: the justice system has been infilitrated and usurped by people who demonstrate an allegiance to a movement that is busily overturning every bedrock principle of American justice. this is the legacy of organizations like "the Heritage Foundation" - the loss of our legal and constitutional heritage - or the mafia lawyers like Torture Boy ("Alberto Gonzalez") in the White House. no "conservative" can ever again claim to be about anything except setting aside the "niceties" of our system of law and justice in the pursuit of power and the "conservative" agenda.

    Posted by ZERO 01/18/2007 @ 01:14am

    Oh for Pete's sake!!! What does your ramblings have to do with Libby's case? As far as the issue of the justice system, I don't pretend to know what been done to it and neither should you. (You only think that you know...)

    But, I do know the Bill of Rights or the Constitution hasn't been destroyed because you're still walking around.

    Posted by ACook at 01/18/2007 @ 12:15pm

29. it happens. it happened to Katrina and the Nation yesterday, when I corrected them, I'm such a stickler, read pedant, when they dropped a sentence in their editing and wound up saying something completely different, and incorrect. it took a while but I got them to see the error of their ways, and they changed it.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/18/2007 @ 12:16pm

30. "..for me jury duty is a potential financial hardship. I miss work, I miss paycheck. here's what I do. I tell the judge that in any drug case I am unable to be impartial, as I believe drug abuse to be a medical rather than a criminal issue. also in any case of a worker against a boss, or insurance company etc, I am unable to be impartial, as my sympathies lie with the worker.

    that usually does the trick. also lawyers do not like to put smart, articulate people on the jury, they do not want a skeptical juror."

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/18/2007 @ 11:54am

    JR, you mean you wouldn't give a defendant a fair shake in the courtroom?

    Posted by ACook at 01/18/2007 @ 12:24pm

31. "it happens. it happened to Katrina and the Nation yesterday, when I corrected them, I'm such a stickler, read pedant, when they dropped a sentence in their editing and wound up saying something completely different, and incorrect. it took a while but I got them to see the error of their ways, and they changed it."

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/18/2007 @ 12:16am

    Careful, they might ban you for reading them too closely..

    Posted by ACook at 01/18/2007 @ 12:26pm

32. The partisan sniping here is obscuring a very real point that is bigger than the Libby case: when one of the witnesses is known to almost every citizen to have a history of (at best) carefully-crafted deliberately misleading speech, how can a juror be unbiased?

    In most cases, we simply need to find a juror who is not acquainted with the parties and witnesses, so he or she will have no reason to trust or distrust statements made. But who has not seen Mr. Cheney speak many, many times? What reasonable person has not formed an opinion about whether he is truthful? And could any person who has followed the Vice President's pronouncements over the years without gaining some distrust of his statements be said to be a reasonable, qualified juror?

    Posted by Otter at 01/18/2007 @ 12:35pm

33. JR, you mean you wouldn't give a defendant a fair shake in the courtroom?

    Posted by ACOOK 01/18/2007 @ 12:24am | ignore this person

    no I would give them MORE than a fair shake. it's the plaintiffs, the DA and the insurance companies who would get less than that from me. it is only fair that I let them know up front. they can force me, with fines and contempt, even jail, to participate in the jury process, but they cannot force me to be impartial.it is rare that the little guy is the plaintiff, he cannot afford it.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/18/2007 @ 12:35pm

34. Careful, they might ban you for reading them too closely..

    Posted by ACOOK 01/18/2007 @ 12:26am | ignore this person

    the opposite is true, they were very grateful.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/18/2007 @ 12:36pm

35. Posted by OTTER 01/18/2007 @ 12:35am | ignore this person

    good point. this is often addressed by a change of venue.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/18/2007 @ 12:37pm

36. Posted by ACOOK 01/18/2007 @ 12:15am

    BTW, ACOOK, you're wasting your time. ZERO put you on his Ignore List (along with 90% of everybody here, Left, Right and Middle)....the moment you said something he disagreed with.

    Posted by Mask at 01/18/2007 @ 1:09pm

37. Jurors ought not be blackballed for their political views."

    Well, if they weren't vetted properly Mr. Corn, no one would get a fair trial in this country regardless to how they feel about the current administration. Everybody deserves due process. You're innocent until proven guilty, like it or not.

    Posted by ACOOK 01/17/2007 @ 7:56pm | ignore this person

    Too bad we all can't receive such fair treatment in a federal court.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 01/18/2007 @ 5:58pm

38. And who believes anything a politician has to say?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 01/18/2007 @ 6:00pm

39. To assert that there's something wrong with the justice system is incorrect also, it's the people who misuse and abuse the system, is where the real problem lies.

    Posted by ACOOK 01/18/2007 @ 12:01am | ignore this person

    You've obviously never been in a federal court. Try sitting in the "Honorable" John McBryde's court sometime in Fort Worth; you'll discover how it works with the Feds. Of course, with a high profile, much publicized case such as this they'll keep it clean. If it were just some average guy, he'd get hammered just for going to trial.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 01/18/2007 @ 6:06pm