Libby Trial, Day Three: A Tough Search for Jurors

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

On the third day of the trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the job of finding Washington jurors who do not hold negative views of the George W. Bush administration, its war in Iraq, and Vice President Dick Cheney became harder. Out of the first ten potential jurors screened by the judge and the lawyers, nine were dismissed--most because they said they believe Bush and Cheney are not to be believed. The day began with Juror No. 0420, a woman who is an information technology consultant. She called the war "a tremendous mistake" and "quite a horrendous thing." She noted she would have a difficult time fairly evaluating testimony from Cheney, explaining there was the "potential" that her bias would "leak" into her subconscious. She was gone.

Then came No. 0388, a manager of audits for the Department of Homeland Security. She spends her days sniffing out procurement fraud. When asked about Cheney's ability to tell the truth, she explained she tended to be "skeptical of politicians' credibility"--and that skepticism would extend to Cheney and anyone who worked for him, especially if the matter at hand concerns the administration's response to a critic. "My profession is to be skeptical," she said, explaining that a politician often tries "to shape public opinion" and is not driven by a desire to provide "the most comprehensive presentation." But she insisted that she could evaluate Cheney's and Libby's testimony without bias and that she realized the burden of proof rested with the government. She was dismissed.

No. 0244 told the court he has "strong negative feelings about this current administration and its conduct of the war" and has a friend who is close to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. He lasted less than a minute. No. 0056 said she is a "very partisan Democrat" who had made up her mind about the case. "I would," she said, "start from the presumption that something negative went on...and Mr. Libby revealed information he should not have....I could not presume he was innocent." Excused. No. 1531, a young woman who is an arts reporter for The Washington Post, said it would be tough for her to function as a juror rather than a journalist. She would be sorely tempted, she explained, to share what she learned at the trial with her colleagues at the Post and her live-in boyfriend, who works there. "I'm a gossip," she professed. After federal district court Judge Reggie Walton reminded her she would have to resist such urges, she noted she had a well-formed view regarding Cheney: "I like to believe that as a journalist I can put my feelings aside....[But] my feelings about Vice President Cheney are so strong it would make it very difficult for me....I feel Vice President Cheney puts his business priorities over the good of the country. I don't trust him. And anyone associated with him would have to jump over a hurdle for me to think he was ever telling the truth." Walton didn't wait: "You're excused." (In the media room, a Washington Post reporter cringed.)

A clerical worker at the CIA disclosed that after she had notified the agency's legal office she had been called as a potential juror, a CIA lawyer had talked to her about this case. The attorney told her that Valerie Wilson had been a covert officer at the CIA and her cover had been blown by Libby. She was bounced. No. 1140, a young woman, said, "I believe the vice president would have had the defendant leak." Did she, Walton ask, harbor any preconceived notions about Libby? She replied with one word: "Guilty." She, too, was free to leave. No. 1232, an older African-American man, lasted seconds: "I don't like the Bush administration," he declared, noting he did not believe he could be an impartial juror. Dismissed.

Only six of sixteen potential jurors made it through the screening process today. Walton needs a pool of 36 vetted potential jurors. After such a group is assembled, the prosecution and defense attorneys will then use preemptory challenges to strike would-be jurors. Jury selection will continue into next week, pushing back the opening arguments previously scheduled for January 22.

As the day wore on, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald tussled with the defense attorneys over how far Libby's lawyers could go in grilling jurors about their general views of the Bush administration. "We ought not to tell some jurors [the case is] about politics," he said at one point. And in the middle of the day, Fitzgerald objected when Ted Wells, a Libby lawyer, asked a possible juror--an employee of the National Academy of Sciences--if this juror could put aside any questions he might have about Cheney's credibility with respect to the war. Fitzgerald wanted Wells to limit the credibility issue to potential Cheney testimony on the administration's reaction to Joe Wilson's criticism of its handling of the prewar intelligence. Fitzgerald was trying to prevent yet another juror from being disqualified because he or she questioned Bush and Cheney's justification of the war. Wells acceded to Fitzgerald's request. The juror said he could impartially assess Cheney's testimony related to the leak case, though he called Cheney's selling of the war "a big stretch." This fellow made it to the next round. But it would be surprising if Libby's lawyers did not use a preemptory challenge to keep him off the jury.

The fencing that has gone on between Fitzgerald and Libby's lawyers during jury selection telegraphs what's to come. Fitzgerald will present a narrow case: this is not about the war, not about the Bush administration's misrepresentations; it's about whether one official, Scooter Libby, purposefully lied to FBI agents and a grand jury investigating the Plame leak. Fitzgerald's goal is to keep it simple. Libby said he did not share official information about Valerie Wilson with reporters and only learned about her CIA status from gossipy journalists. Fitzgerald will present evidence and testimony indicating Libby collected classified information on her and then passed it to at least two reporters. Case closed, if Fitzgerald's lucky.

The Libby side wants to create multiple narratives: he was too busy to remember clearly what he said to whom; this prosecution is a result of infighting between various government agencies; he's not the primary leaker in the CIA case; and so on. Create confusion so there is reasonable doubt that Libby intentionally made false statements. But before any of that can happen, a few more jurors have to be found.

******

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 (70)

1. This trial is just taking way too long and costing too much money. Why don't they empanel a jury made up of the Republican numbskulls who post at The Nation's website and let's get this fair trial over.

   Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Iraq war veteran's memorial? How about, also, a memorial to the rule of law in America as it once existed before the medieval Republicans infiltrated the court system?

   Posted by fromredbird at 01/18/2007 @ 6:27pm

2. The Defense Department's rules for upcoming detainee trials would allow terrorism suspects to be convicted and perhaps executed using hearsay evidence and some coerced testimony.

   The rules are fair, said the department, which released them Thursday in a manual for the expected trials.

   http://tinyurl.com/yt3lvr

   Fair?

   The Bush administration is checking the accuracy of a watch list of suspected terrorists banned from traveling on airliners in the U.S. and will probably cut the list in half, the head of the Transportation Security Administration said Wednesday.

   Even cutting the list in half is "nice but not all that meaningful," said Barry Steinhardt, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. He noted that various estimates of the list's size, which is classified, have ranged from 50,000 to 350,000 names.

   http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/16483394.htm

   Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Nazi Germany? Stalin's USSR? No way- this is America, Wilbur.

   Posted by fromredbird at 01/18/2007 @ 6:33pm

3. WOW. Is anybody else just stunned that a federal court is having problems finding jurors that are willing to believe the President and VP? This is out of what is described as a pretty educated bunch. I think that says all that really needs saying. Zero credibility in the eyes of the electorate. That is just one legacy that Chimpy will leave behind.

   "I will restore truth and credibility to the White House," Candidate Bush- a lie.

   Posted by crabwalk at 01/18/2007 @ 7:10pm

4. Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Nazi Germany? Stalin's USSR? No way- this is America, Wilbur.

   Posted by FROMREDBIRD 01/18/2007 @ 6:33pm

   Let's not start comparing the United States to Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union quite yet, shall we? When hundreds of thousands of Americans are randomly rounded up, tortured in order to denounce others and then shot -- that's when the comparison between Bush's United States and Stalin's Soviet Union will stand up. When American Muslims have their civil right taken away, are sent to concentration camps and murdered -- that's when you may start comparing the United States to Nazi Germany.

   On-topic: I am so glad I live in a country that does not have a system of trial by jury. Having said that, this story does make me smile. It's so telling that the court has such difficulty finding enough jurors who are willing to believe that a government representative like, say, Cheney, will not lie under oath. This calls for special measures, I say. If they've quizzed 500 potential jurors and still can't make up the numbers, may we assume that Libby's guilty and proceed to sentencing? Hey, it would still be a better deal than the 'enemy combatants' in Guantanamo are getting.

   Posted by Amsterdam69 at 01/18/2007 @ 7:24pm

5. "I will restore truth and credibility to the White House," Candidate Bush

   Ah, come on, Crabwalk. You know how bad he is with words. What he meant to say was: "I will remove truth and credibility from the White House." Honest mistake.

   Posted by Amsterdam69 at 01/18/2007 @ 7:31pm

6. I find it totally ironic that many of you say you want a fair justice system for all, and yet you're not willing to give a fair trial to this man. Now, if any of you were involved in a high profile case, you'd want an impartial jury also.

   Posted by ACook at 01/18/2007 @ 8:31pm

7. Can you imagine if they held up the trial of Charles Manson by asking prospective jurors if they were biased against hippies?

   Posted by JoeDaJuggler at 01/18/2007 @ 8:45pm

8. "Can you imagine if they held up the trial of Charles Manson by asking prospective jurors if they were biased against hippies?"

   Posted by JOEDAJUGGLER 01/18/2007 @ 8:45pm

   Ah, yeah...

   Posted by ACook at 01/18/2007 @ 9:04pm

9. Again and again...

   Imagine the articles here at "The Nation" if in 1996, Susan McDougal's lawyers were stopping Limbaugh ditto-heads from getting on her jury...

   "Absolutely, why should those who automatically think that Clinton is a liar and ALREADY think 'Whitewater' is a REAL scandal, try this woman???"

   Hypocrisy....my favorite sin, because it usually comes from those who claim to be the most sinless....Religious Right...or Sanctimonius Left!

   Posted by Mask at 01/18/2007 @ 10:07pm

10. "I find it totally ironic that many of you say you want a fair justice system for all, and yet you're not willing to give a fair trial to this man...."

    Posted by ACOOK 01/18/2007 @ 8:31pm

    Ironic? Not at all! At least there is an actual trial for Scooter set to start....Those 3 Duke lacross players? They were judged `Guilty' by the same "many of you = Gang of 88" even before the Nifong (the prosecutor) had interviewed the alleged victim!

    Posted by Happy at 01/18/2007 @ 11:00pm

11. The Defense Department's rules for upcoming detainee trials would allow terrorism suspects to be convicted and perhaps executed using hearsay evidence and some coerced testimony.

    The rules are fair, said the department, which released them Thursday in a manual for the expected trials.

    http://tinyurl.com/yt3lvr

    Fair?

    Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Nazi Germany? Stalin's USSR? No way- this is America, Wilbur.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 01/18/2007 @ 6:33pm

    When American Muslims have their civil right taken away, are sent to concentration camps and murdered -- that's when you may start comparing the United States to Nazi Germany.

    Posted by AMSTERDAM69 01/18/2007 @ 7:24pm

    I take it that you have an extraordinarily short attention span.

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/19/2007 @ 01:02am

12. Can you imagine if they held up the trial of Charles Manson by asking prospective jurors if they were biased against hippies?

    Posted by JOEDAJUGGLER 01/18/2007 @ 8:45pm

    You mean they didn't ask the prospective jurors if they considered LSD-addled, unkempt, dirty slobs with X's penciled between their eyes credible? And why wouldn't a very public pathological liar's defense team want to empanel only jurors who were dumb enough to still believe him? It's America, Wilbur.

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/19/2007 @ 01:17am

13. I find it totally ironic that many of you say you want a fair justice system for all, and yet you're not willing to give a fair trial to this man. Now, if any of you were involved in a high profile case, you'd want an impartial jury also.

    Posted by ACOOK 01/18/2007 @ 8:31pm

    I do want a fair trial for Libby. But these problems with jury selection illustrate clearly how flawed the system is and how difficult it is, therefore, to give Libby a fair trial. Like I said before, I'm glad I live in a country where matters of guilt, innocence and sentencing are dealt with by a judge (or a panel of judges) and not a jury.

    Wouldn't it be better if the US abolished jurys altogether and stuck with judges? They're smarter and certainly have a better legal education than the average juror.

    Of course, that's not going to happen. So we'll end up with a jury of numb-skulls, who are uneducated and non-political. Perfect!

    I take it that you have an extraordinarily short attention span.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 01/19/2007 @ 01:02am

    Extraordinarily short. Indeed. Sorry, gotta go now. I'm bored. ;-)

    Posted by Amsterdam69 at 01/19/2007 @ 05:08am

14. oh what i would give to be on that jury...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/19/2007 @ 07:04am

15. amsterdam, in many cases here a defendant can ask for a trial by judge. few do, preferring a jury of their peers.

    in your country, are the judges elected, appointed? with a dictatorial pres like Bush appointing judges, I personally would rathe take my chance with a jury.

    are you familiar with the film "12 angry men" ? it started out as a play, like many movies.

    last, it's not polite to join a conversation and then quickly announce your departure due to boredom. good manners are always appropriate.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/19/2007 @ 09:23am

16. Posted by ACOOK 01/18/2007 @ 9:04pm | ignore this person

    my apologies, it appears Libby IS being charged with lying to the FBI, AND to the grand jury.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/19/2007 @ 09:24am

17. "Wouldn't it be better if the US abolished jurys altogether and stuck with judges? They're smarter and certainly have a better legal education than the average juror."

    That's more or less what the Feds have done. If you're just an average guy and the Feds indict you, you better take a plea if one is offered. Demanding a trial means the judge is going to hammer your ass once the jury convicts.

    They offer a plea deal, you accept (if you're smart), and sign a statement admitting guilt and accepting responsibility for your offense (if you do not accept responsibility you don't get the two or so points, and that means maybe a year more). You do not pass go, you do not collect $100. It's all nice and legal looking. They have your confession. You don't waste money on lawyers; just let the court appointed jerk off fill in the paper work and save your money. (If a lawyer gets in there and fights for you, the judge is gonna hammer you even harder; and it teaches the lawyer a lesson that he had better learn.)

    Too bad we all can't get such fair treatment in a federal court. Mr. Libby is fortunate.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 01/19/2007 @ 09:27am

18. And some in the government are very interested in taking away our right to a jury trial, at least when it comes to law suits. The juries are much to prone to awarding large settlements (which are almost always later overturned by a judge when it's appealed). The goal is not some sort of improvement of our system for trials, but to save corporations from costly law suits.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 01/19/2007 @ 09:33am

19. ACOOK, who here ever said Libby shouldn't get a fair trial? And why are you all of a sudden so concerned about fair trials? If the feds say he's guilty, he must be guilty, based on our current system of justice in GITMO, Iraq and Bagram. Right? Or is it because Libby is a Caucasian?

    Are you not just amazed at the number of people that simply do not believe YOUR president and VP? Does that not speak volumes about this admin?

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/19/2007 @ 10:20am

20. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 01/19/2007 @ 01:02am

    Extraordinarily short. Indeed. Sorry, gotta go now. I'm bored. ;-)

    Posted by AMSTERDAM69 01/19/2007 @ 05:08am

    I was starting to myself but that should change now.

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/19/2007 @ 10:41am

21. Has Maasch been heard from in the last couple of days? I thought he was based in OK, but this sounds like our boy:

    http://www.wmur.com/news/10772891/detail.html

    Why do these nutjobs have such a problem with #16 amendment?

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/19/2007 @ 10:46am

22. Republican Bob Ney - 2 1/2 years in a federal penitentiary. Yaa-hoo!

    Ney, the first congressman ensnared in the case, pleaded guilty to trading official favors for golf trips, tickets, meals and campaign donations from disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

    The sentence was harsher than recommended by prosecutors or Ney's lawyers, Huvelle said, because Ney had violated the trust place on him as a public official. "Both your constituents and the public trusted you to represent them honestly," she said.

    Rollin', rollin', rollin' . . . keep those perps a'rollin' . .

    everything is changed now . .

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/19/2007 @ 10:50am

23. Posted by CRABWALK 01/19/2007 @ 10:46am

    Great. Crazed dentists brandishing weapons and proclaiming that they won't tolerate "bulliness". It can't be MAASCH. He didn't accuse everyone else of being a kook.

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/19/2007 @ 10:55am

24. Yaa-hoo! Did you miss the Texas governor's inaugural gala? Rock, racism, and Republicans! They'll straighten this country out! This is the political party America needs if we're ever going to build the bridge to nowhere.

    Hours after Gov. Rick Perry kicked off his second full term in office, Ted Nugent helped him celebrate at a black-tie gala, but not all attendees were pleased by the rocker's performance.

    Using machine guns as props, Nugent, 58, appeared onstage as the final act of the inaugural ball wearing a cutoff T-shirt emblazoned with the Confederate flag and shouting offensive remarks about non-English speakers, according to people who were in attendance.

    Perry's spokesman, Robert Black, downplayed the Tuesday-night incident.

    "Ted Nugent is a good friend of the governor's. He asked him if he would play at the inaugural. He didn't put any stipulation of what he would play," Black said.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070118/ap_on_en_ot/people_ted_nugent

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/19/2007 @ 11:02am

25. WOOOO HOOO!

    got another question on Dianne Rehm show. "I have been reading your columns about the Libby trial, and I am simply stunned that the court seems to be having such a hard time finding people that think our president and VP are truthful, and that can trust Libby, even under oath. This is out of a group that appears to be very well educated. To me this proves that President Bush certainly has not restored credibility to the White House. What does it say about the state of our country?"

    Pretty much what I have been asking here.

    David was cut off at the end, unfortunately. must be the liberal media. What does this say about our country? I think it says this admin is corrupt beyond belief and few believe a word it says. Sad.

    thank You Mr. Corn for trying. Good job on the show!!! U Da Man! keep up the good work you do.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/19/2007 @ 11:05am

26. The sentence was harsher than recommended by prosecutors or Ney's lawyers, Huvelle said, because Ney had violated the trust place on him as a public official. "Both your constituents and the public trusted you to represent them honestly," she said.

    Didn't they notice he had the mark of Republicain?

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/19/2007 @ 11:06am

27. Has Maasch been heard from in the last couple of days? I thought he was based in OK, but this sounds like our boy:

    he lives in Lincoln Nebraska. whatever one may say about his opinions, and I have quite a track record there, he is an up front person. he is exactly what he says he is, as much as I have been able to discern.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/19/2007 @ 11:06am

28. He didn't accuse everyone else of being a kook.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 01/19/2007 @ 10:55am

    hahaha. I missed that tell.

    Nugent, that guy really should take up some drinking and maybe a toke or two. He is a nutjob maximus. Used to live near me. Few neighbors miss him.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/19/2007 @ 11:09am

29. Thanks Johann, got the states confused. I have also been confused about what John is lately, as i think he is. Libertarian or conservative? I don't like labels, but words and descriptions do matter. When attacking guvt he claims libertarian status, when pseudo-defending Chimpy he claims the mantle of outraged conservative. I think I will stick with neo-con. it seems to fit. He may place me in his kook pile if he sees fit to do so, I think I would be in some good company. Plus it all seems to be front row seats.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/19/2007 @ 11:15am

30. The Republicains need the USA Patriot Act to fight terrorism:

    Two U.S. Attorneys in California announced they are stepping down, as critics alleged political pressure from the Bush administration was pushing them and others out of their jobs.

    Kevin Ryan, chief federal prosecutor for the state's Northern District, and Carol Lam, who headed the state's Southern District, both announced Tuesday they would be leaving their positions.

    The two are among 11 top federal prosecutors who have resigned or announced their resignations since an obscure provision in the USA Patriot Act reauthorization last year enabled the U.S. attorney general to appoint replacements without Senate confirmation.

    During his tenure, Ryan oversaw high-profile prosecutions on stock options fraud and steroids in sports, which led to the convictions of five people linked to the Burlingame-based Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative. His office also has focused on prosecuting violent gang crime in the Northern District, which covers the coastal region stretching from the southern San Francisco Bay area to the Oregon border.

    During her tenure leading the Southern District, which covers San Diego and Imperial counties, Lam prioritized prosecuting political corruption and health care fraud. She oversaw the government's case against Randy "Duke" Cunningham, the former Republican congressman who pleaded guilty to taking $2.4 million in bribes, and her office won corruption convictions of two San Diego city councilmen.

    She also took the unusual step of prosecuting Tenet Healthcare Corp. herself on charges that the company paid kickbacks to doctors for patient referrals. The case resulted in a mistrial.

    http://tinyurl.com/2stkzf

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/19/2007 @ 11:16am

31. Bob Ney, CONVICTED felon. Next repub admin he can be our comptroller, joining the long, long list of felons serving our country under repub presidents. maybe Chalibi will hire him.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/19/2007 @ 11:17am

32. Nugent, that guy really should take up some drinking and maybe a toke or two. He is a nutjob maximus. Used to live near me. Few neighbors miss him.

    Posted by CRABWALK 01/19/2007 @ 11:09am

    They didn't like having an aging rock star wandering around in the snow in their backyard with an elephant gun?

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/19/2007 @ 11:19am

33. Posted by CRABWALK 01/19/2007 @ 11:15am | ignore this person

    very cute that bit with the guy from NH. I'm sure Maasch will get a chuckle out of it as well.

    one thing must be said about Maasch, no matter how he is excoriated his response is temperate, with kook being usually the most harsh epithet.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/19/2007 @ 11:20am

34. ciao. read ya in a few hours.

    I really want some comment from the righties about what the jury selection says about our "leaders". Or will they attack the system , again?

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/19/2007 @ 11:20am

35. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 01/19/2007 @ 11:19am

    Nuge prefers his bow and arrow. Brings him closer to caveman status. Much more befitting to his mentality. i will give him credit, he is one damn fine hunter, far, far better than I. He is just never happy killing one thing, or weeding out the weak or sick. He HAS to get the biggest, healthiest of the herd. Counter intuitive to a conservationist.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/19/2007 @ 11:24am

36. last, it's not polite to join a conversation and then quickly announce your departure due to boredom. good manners are always appropriate.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/19/2007 @ 09:23am

    This from the guy calling people "twit" the other day...

    PLEASE stop instructing everyone on what good manners are, Johannes, on what civility is. You are NOT the judge of these things for anyone else, and you really are taking the PC thing to a ludicrous level.

    In case you didn't notice, Amsterdam posted several times before FromRedBird implied he had a "very short attention span"... Amsterdam's retort was tongue-in-cheek, to anyone reading all of his posts. AND HE WASN'T EVEN TALKING TO YOU.

    God forbid you should let others express themselves as they wish without chiding them like children.

    Posted by New Dawn at 01/19/2007 @ 11:57am

37. JR,

    Danke sehr..du bist ein mensch...immer ein mensch...

    Posted by john maasch at 01/19/2007 @ 11:59am

38. Crab,

    " Plus it all seems to be front row seats. "

    Only for the purists and unrepairables..terminal, so to speak..

    And no, you are not in the section...yet..:)

    But we do have plenty of seats..

    As far as jurys...if one really can't find an impartial jury, move the venue...many out in the rest of the nation do not care about Libby or Cheney or Fitzgerald, so a clean jury could be found...I am disappointed that after all the charges and counter charges thrown out as facts by the MSM, Corn, et al....all we get is a Libby trial on something that is not even related to the "outing", which apparently never happened, or they know who(Armitage and Wislon himself)) and it wasn't a big deal....seems like a waste of time and money to end up with someone for littering..

    I live in Nebraska..

    Posted by john maasch at 01/19/2007 @ 12:05pm

39. Dawn, given how rude discourse on this site can often get, I for one had no problem with Johannes offering a bit of constructive criticism to Amsterdam, and I hope it was taken in that spirit by our Dutch friend, even if JR, like the rest of us, does not always live up to the standards he espouses.

    I am so TIRED of this express yourself "as you wish" attitude when the result is so often either meanness or idiocy. I really wish The Nation moderated these discussions; most of the time, they are so far below the level of the magazine that they are an embarrassment. I love free speech, but heavens bless editors and moderators.

    Back on topic, and this is for Amsterdam if he or she returns: the jury has been a crucial pillar of democratic systems and a necessary bulwark against elitist judges. An establishment judiciary may be less of a problem in a social democracy like the Netherlands, but the more I learn about the history of juries and how serious most jurors take their duties (having served on several myself), the more I respect the system and the less I believe the media and corporate smear machine.

    Posted by cka2nd at 01/19/2007 @ 12:33pm

40. thank you CKA. I agree that our jury system is best, for us. I have never been on a jury, having weaseled out. in my weaseling however I had a chance to see what happens in court to the little guy, especially those who ignore their summonses. it wasn't pretty. judges are an elitist bunch, and I for one would rather be judged by a group which has to agree, after much negotiation.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/19/2007 @ 12:48pm

41. I am so TIRED of this express yourself "as you wish" attitude when "the result is so often either meanness or idiocy. I really wish The Nation moderated these discussions; most of the time, they are so far below the level of the magazine that they are an embarrassment. I love free speech, but heavens bless editors and moderators."

    this very good too.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/19/2007 @ 12:49pm

42. John has a good point about moving the trial. But I think that also says something about the leadership. As many of the potential jurors, as described by David, work within the system and know people that work with the litigants, are they not in a better position to judge the witnesses truth-ee-ness? Are they not Libby's peers? I don't think a mix of line workers/plumbers/dentists would be his peers. But that brings up the whole question of what the Illustrious Forefathers meant by "peer".

    no moderation/editing is a good thing. If I say something incredibly stupid i deserve to be called out on it, not have the post disappear. How else would we hear from WOODYEE and Barry? They represent a large segment of the populace, we need to keep in touch with how well the admin propaganda is working on the masses.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/19/2007 @ 1:26pm

43. Interesting???

    Ever seen a FROMREDBIRD post COMPLIMENTING the Democrats?

    They just finished the "First 100 Hours" in less than 50...yet no celebratory posts from FRB.

    Is he just "anti-Republican", but not "pro-Democrat"?!?!??! I mean if a Republican came out for free health care, like Arnie, would FROMMY oppose it?!?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 01/19/2007 @ 1:43pm

44. no moderation/editing is a good thing. If I say something incredibly stupid i deserve to be called out on it, not have the post disappear. How else would we hear from WOODYEE and Barry? They represent a large segment of the populace, we need to keep in touch with how well the admin propaganda is working on the masses.

    Posted by CRABWALK 01/19/2007 @ 1:26pm

    You're someday expecting a deviation from 100% for those . . . uh . . guys?

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/19/2007 @ 2:21pm

45. For the record, I couldn't care less if AMSTERDAM69 thinks I'm boring and says so. I'm more concerned about why he insists on not calling America what it demonstrably is.

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/19/2007 @ 2:24pm

46. Anyway, the reason he said that was because I WAS demonstrably right. He just didn't want to admit it.

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/19/2007 @ 2:27pm

47. Anyway, the reason he said that was because I WAS demonstrably right. He just didn't want to admit it.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 01/19/2007 @ 2:27pm

    "YOU WILL BOW DOWN BEFORE ME, JOR-EL...ONE DAY, YOU AND THEN YOUR HEIRS!!! YOU WILL BOW DOWN BEFORE ME!"

    Posted by Mask at 01/19/2007 @ 2:48pm

48. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 01/19/2007 @ 2:21pm

    you are correct, sadly. They will tow the company line no matter the facts before their eyes. But it is fun to watch the talking points filter down to them.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/19/2007 @ 4:40pm

49. no comment from the neo's about the lack of credibility of cheney and his Chief of Staff? hmmmm. Fascinating.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/19/2007 @ 4:42pm

50. toe the line . . .

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/19/2007 @ 5:25pm

51. I had a chance to see what happens in court to the little guy, especially those who ignore their summonses. it wasn't pretty. judges are an elitist bunch, and I for one would rather be judged by a group which has to agree, after much negotiation.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/19/2007 @ 12:48am | ignore this person

    That's because the vast majority of judges are former prosecutors.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 01/19/2007 @ 5:27pm

52. That's because the vast majority of judges are former prosecutors.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 01/19/2007 @ 5:27pm | ignore this person

    good point.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/19/2007 @ 5:42pm

53. There are three interesting things about this jury-selection story.

    The first is that jury selection sometimes seems more concerned with weeding out "bias" than with determining whether people are able to presume the innocence of individuals, including Libby, until guilt is proven by means of evidence. Some potential jurors demonstrated an inability to do this, but others, regardless of "bias," would seem to be to have served well, had they been chosen. I agree with Libby's defenders that somebody who spits "Guilty" at the first meeting may not be swayed by evidence, and ought to be rejected as a juror. But potential juror number 0388, who said she was "skeptical of politicians' credibility" and "insisted that she could evaluate Cheney's and Libby's testimony without bias and that she realized the burden of proof rested with the government" would have made an excellent juror, and I am disappointed that she was rejected. I don't know what to think of juror number 0420, who said that there was a "potential" that her bias would "leak" into her subconscious. I am less disturbed by her bias than that she seems to believe that jurors should make "subconscious" rather than conscious decisions!

    The second interesting thing is that the more Libby's defenders have to reject jurors for "bias," the more they demonstrate how truly unpopular the Bush administration is. I believe this, after all, was David Corn's main point.

    The third interesting thing is that the defenders of Libby seem to be as interested in defending the entire Bush administration, and specifically defending its war in Iraq, as they are in defending Libby himself. But wasn't Libby's crime precisely to "out" Valerie Plame as a secret agent? Arguably, this crime only incidentally had anything to do with the war. A juror should be able to judge Libby fairly regardless of what she or he thinks or feels about the war in Iraq.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 01/19/2007 @ 7:03pm

54. Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 01/19/2007 @ 7:03pm | ignore this person

    Fabian the teen idol or Fabian the progressive?

    seriously, the man is accused of only one thing, though several counts, lying. he is not accused of outing anyone. that's the legal aspect.

    in the political aspect you are correct. that is why this trial is so damaging to Bush and his mendacious coterie. like Clinton, they should have made a deal. the longer this trial goes on, the more it will be death by a thousand cuts.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/19/2007 @ 7:09pm

55. Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/20/2007 @ 12:00am

    Or rightwingers who claim to support the military, but ignore it when they need a "Surge"...or love democracy, except when the people and polls turn against them in an election!

    Posted by Mask at 01/20/2007 @ 08:47am

56. one is "presumed innocent until convicted"!

    this before the law. in the court of public opinion there are few rules. take OJ for instance, somebody please do, even though he was found not guilty in a criminal trial, the court of public opinion was not fooled, most people thought he was guilty, as a civil trial later concluded.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2007 @ 09:20am

57. another example might be the Whitewater "scandal". the only thing scandalous about that affair is that after ten years and millions of dollars no wrong doing was found. yet in the rpess' parlance it's often the Whitewater scandal.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2007 @ 10:33am

58. Well, JR, the Simpson circus trial was a joke from the beginning. The prosecution did an awful job. They allowed Cochran to rush the trial and they lost. The civil trial was a joke too. Simpson is never going to pay anybody.

    Now, down here in Atlanta, there's a high profile case getting ready to begin. People vs. Brian Nichols. This man has been accused of killing 4 people, one of the victims is a superior court judge. The DA's office has been very tight-lipped about this case and they are not allowing cameras in the courtroom.

    I believe the less information given to the press regarding high profile cases, the less likely a potential juror will have themselves removed from jury duty. This is one reasonable way to allow a case to be judged on its merits and not subjectivity. The other way is to change the venue.

    Posted by ACook at 01/20/2007 @ 11:05am

59. I believe the less information given to the press regarding high profile cases, the less likely a potential juror will have themselves removed from jury duty.

    this is no doubt true, but here you run into freedom of the press.

    the change of venue is also problematic, and subject to abuse. here in NYC we had the case of Amadou Diallo, who died in a hail of police bullets, standing in front of his house and reaching for his wallet. the case was moved up to Albany, where people have an entirely different view of the police, who got off scot free.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2007 @ 11:17am

60. "I believe the less information given to the press..."

    this leads to secret trials. calling Joseph Stalin.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2007 @ 11:29am

61. JR, I do believe in freedom of the press, but I also believe that the press should use discretion when it comes to high profile cases. They should have used it in the Amadou Diallo case.

    Wait a minute, Stalin had secret trials? I thought he just ordered his goons to drag off the poor souls who didn't like him and had them shot?

    Posted by ACook at 01/20/2007 @ 11:55am

62. "Wait a minute, Stalin had secret trials?"

    some were secret trials, some were show trials. to ask the press to show restraint is censoring them, and profoundly unamerican. google Peter Zenger.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2007 @ 12:05pm

63. "They should have used it in the Amadou Diallo case."

    I don't get this. what should they have done? be careful not to always shoot the messenger.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2007 @ 12:06pm

64. I thought he just ordered his goons to drag off the poor souls who didn't like him and had them shot?

    Posted by ACOOK 01/20/2007 @ 11:55am | ignore this person

    he may have done this too. but the point of the trials was that the victims had to make elaborate "confessions" of the trumped up charges.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2007 @ 12:07pm

65. If you limit the jury pool to people who still find the Bush administration credible, you can limit your choices to people who also believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. People who don't have a negative view of this administration have their heads buried in substantial piles of sand. I don't think that makes one biased or constitutes prejudgment of Mr. Libby. He may or may not have done what he is accused of doing. But no one who is paying attention to slighest degree can honestly find this administration even slightly credible any more.

    Posted by jims0121 at 01/20/2007 @ 1:46pm

66. Hello Mr Corn, I called in at the very end of the Diane Rehm Show on Friday, January 19, where you were a guest. I brought up the idea that the Democrats should should stop funding the occupation of Iraq by making the case that they are against funding the multinational corporate franchises in the Green Zone and on various superbases, implying permanent American occupation. Noone on the panel seemed to be aware that Burger King, Subway and others have franchises in the Green Zone, Camp Anaconda and elsewhere in Iraq so here is the link to the article that I received my information from: http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/58/18340

    Posted by HAVgjtgjjgEN at 01/20/2007 @ 9:04pm

67. Posted by HAVGJTGJJGEN 01/20/2007 @ 9:04pm

    I caught your question, and I have to admit, I wondered where you were going with it. After reading the article I am only slightly less confused. The article is about massive build-up and permanent bases. The "corporate food" is only a side issue, if that. when the US moves 120,000 troops into a region they like to bring familiar things with them to help ease the burden our troops face. This includes Starbucks, P. Hut and BK. (Who knows, maybe WOODYEE can spot Scott Ritter there). I doubt that the franchises are a secret plot to enrich the owners. Even if so, it is a drop in the bucket compared to KBR, Talon and Blackwater types, who are reaping millions in war profits, untouched by any oversight.

    The Chimpster wants permanent bases in Iraq, regardless of what the Iraqis and US citizens want. That is one of the points of this war. Secure the oil. Which they have FAILED to do.

    Maybe the food court should be called the "Don Rumsfeld Economic Development Zone", or the "Kenneth Lay Freedom Center"?

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/21/2007 @ 10:25am

68. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/20/2007 @ 12:05am

    This is why I come here.

    also to compare the smarts of Johann and Woodyee. the wise liberal and the idiot conservative.

    thanks, Johnan. Congrats on getting into your show. I hope it leads to many fruitful commissions.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/21/2007 @ 10:30am

69. Oops, forgot to mention, This is why we are such a mess in the US. The neo-cons pay no attention to history, they try to compare WWII to Iraq instead of Viet-Nam for instance.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/21/2007 @ 10:32am

70. This is what Chimpy wants a return to, backed by his sycophantic foloowers:

    "Zenger was defended by Philadelphia attorney Andrew Hamilton, who argued that the published statements could not be libelous if they were true. English law at the time, which was designed to protect the government from critical elements, dictated that truth was not a defense to libel. "

    No Truth, please, it causes America Hatred.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/21/2007 @ 10:42am