home

Libby: Inside the Jury Room

By Jeralyn, Section Lewis Libby Trial Coverage
Posted on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:53:34 AM EST
Tags: Libby Trial (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Libby Juror #9, Denis Collins, a journalist and author, made the rounds of every network yesterday. On Larry King Live, he said he'd be writing about his experiences but hadn't yet decided in what form.

Today, his 7 page online account of what happened inside the jury room appears exclusively at Huffington Post.

Update: Also check out Technorati's Buzz TV with a cutie named Aaron. He highlights juror #9 Denis Collins first hand account at HuffPo and this TalkLeft post. I really like the fast moving video at the beginning, the images flash as as fast as this one.

< Libby: Jane and Marcy's Final Trial V-Log | GOP Federalism in Action: US Attorney Pressured To Assist GOP in State Election Contest >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Libby: Inside the Jury Room | 46 comments (46 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Talking points (none / 0) (#1)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:01:15 AM EST
    The length of the deliberation, the care taken and organization of the material will still be trumpeted by the right as the products of jury "confusion."

    San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders is already putting out the party line that Libby's lies were equivalent to Bill Clinton's.  (I'm not going to post a link.  She doesn't deserve it.)

    If that's the best they can do, they're out of ammo.  There is no comparison between Clinton's lie about an unrelated matter in a deposition on a subject of no national importance, in a suit that was settled out of court and the depositions discarded as though they had never existed, and Libby's lies about matters of national security to a GRAND JURY AND THE FBI.

    Nice try, won't fly. (1.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 11:05:29 AM EST
    Must not have been to much security involved, no one has been indicted and/or tried.

    Parent
    Libby verdict (none / 0) (#6)
    by KD on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 11:10:42 AM EST
    I've heard CBS newscasters compare Libby with Martha Stewart. Personally, I think that lying about the outing of an undercover CIA agent working on weapons of mass destruction is a little more important than lying about a stock trade. They're also downplaying the significance of the verdict by saying it's all just to convoluted and complicated for the public to understand.

    Parent
    KD (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 02:46:49 PM EST
    The outing of Plame, if that's what you want to call it, wasn't illegal.

    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 07:10:34 PM EST
    The outing of Plame, if that's what you want to call it, wasn't illegal.

    So even though the CIA said it was a crime, what do they know, because YOU know more than the CIA does about its own employees.  Just so we're clear, why do you dispute the CIA's position on the legality of dispensing classified information?  What do you know that they don't?

    The leak compromised Brewster Jennings and exposed years of covert activity conducted under Plame's Brewster Jennings cover, and ended her work on controlling the proliferation of WMD.  Do you believe that exposing this information harmed the country?

    Libby was convicted of the same crime that led to Nixon's resignation, obstruction of Justice.  Nixon was not accused of taking part in the Watergate burglary, so I'm sure you felt there was no crime then ether.

    Parent

    RePack. (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 06:40:36 AM EST
    The CIA, like the rest of us, doesn't get to decide if something is a crime.

    BTW - If CIA claims were always right, we would have found WMD's all over Iraq.

    Parent

    no, the DoJ does ... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Sailor on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 09:20:12 AM EST
    ... and the found it was a crime.

    Parent
    the DoJ and CIA diagree ... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Sailor on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 03:30:33 PM EST
    ... but since rush lameballs said it wasn't, well that's good enough for the rethuglican base ... or maybe just base rethuglicans.

    Parent
    KD, just the facts. (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 07:06:20 AM EST
    The crime being investigated was that a covert agent had been outed. That was found to be not true. No one was charged, or tried, even though Armitage admitted that he was the one who outed her.

    Libby was charged with lying to the investigators about who knew what, when. But he wasn't charged with lying about a crime, because no other crime was charged against him. or anyone else.

    I think he got humped. You think he got what he deserved. We can disagree over that.

    But the underlying facts do not change based on our opinions.

    Parent

    I think the (none / 0) (#26)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 07:13:16 AM EST
      problem is you have a fundamental misapprhension of hos the system works.

     Even an acquittal does not mean a crime was not committed. Very often we do know a crime was committed but the defendant gets acquitted-- either based upon a belief HE was not the person who committed the crime or merely that he might have or probably committed it but the proof is insufficient.

      The same general princople applies to investigations and decisions not to pursue charges.  If a woman is found dead with 10 bullet wounds and it is determined that the 5th shot was the fatal one, there is little question a crime was committed. If no killer is readily identified and evidence of strong motive for YOU to kill her comes to light that would certainly start an investigation of you. you might well not be charged though if there is no other evidence. That does not mean you didn't do it. It just means you either got lucky or planned well enough to get away with it


    Parent

    that was a bit imprecise. (none / 0) (#31)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 07:36:06 AM EST
      I did not mean to imply it means you did do it. i just meant that failure to prosecute does not necessarily establish that you didn't and it certainly does not establish no crime was committed.

    Parent
    Does anyone else think... (none / 0) (#2)
    by sphealey on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:04:08 AM EST
    Does anyone else think it is inappropriate for Collins to be publishing this account?  Were I on that jury I would have said nothing for 10 years at least.  It doesn't seem like good public policy to talk out of the jury room.

    sPh

    Not really (none / 0) (#3)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:32:06 AM EST
    The trial is over, and nothing a juror says will revisit it.  The OJ Simpson jurors abdicated their responsibility to deliberate, and couldn't wait to get on the street and talk about it.  Some thought they would get to write books about their inability to take their responsibility seriously, and cash in on their incompetence.

    In what respect would it be "inappropriate" for a juror to describe how they came to their conclusion?  If anything, his account shows how well the jurors performed, and it's time some actual competence went on display in Washington.

    Parent

    Since it is going to appeal. (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 11:04:05 AM EST


    Parent
    That doesn't matter. (none / 0) (#9)
    by nolo on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 01:14:50 PM EST
    There's no rule requiring trial jurors to maintain some sort of secrecy after the verdict has been entered.

    Parent
    He sure likes the spotlight though (none / 0) (#12)
    by magster on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 02:51:06 PM EST
    And he is doing this to pimp his book, and perhaps another one on this case.  I would be a little worried that the defense is going to say he voted for conviction to maximize publicity.  There may be ammo in 7 pages of blathering for a motion for new trial (e.g. is it appropriate to tally sustained objections and consider that?). So if I was Fitzgerald, I'd be thinking "STFU #9!"

    Parent
    Equal (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 02:54:40 PM EST
    Why would a conviction make his book more popular? The inside story on Libby's acquittal would sell just as well, had it happened.

    Parent
    You can always spin something... (none / 0) (#15)
    by magster on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 03:21:31 PM EST
    It doesn't any difference to me (or you),  but to a zealous advocate for a desperate client, I'm sure Wells can come up with something that may merit a second thought.

    I guarantee Wells and his staff have that 7 page diatribe printed, highlighted, tabbed, and otherwise mutilated.  It's a lawyer's job to make something out of nothing, and there's a whole lot of nothing in # 9's statement.

    Parent

    Squeaky (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 06:32:57 AM EST
    The added drama of a man going to prison.

    Parent
    Really (none / 0) (#38)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 11:57:19 AM EST
    Like OJ?

    Parent
    Like a man going to prison. (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 01:58:08 PM EST
    That too difficult to understand??

    Parent
    It's a free country (none / 0) (#14)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 02:54:45 PM EST
     and he has freedom of speech. A trial is not a secret proceeding like a grand jury proceeding and a petit juror is not swoen to secrecy once deliberations conclude.

      I think it is in the public interest for people to know more not less about judicicial proceedings. If he makes abuck or two, what the hey, it's the american way.

    Parent

    This, (none / 0) (#11)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 02:50:08 PM EST
    Coulter, and Bluebeard Guliani.

    Rough week, eh Jimbo? Maybe you should look into the concept of karma.

    Jondee smears (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 06:37:41 AM EST
    Since I made numerous negative commens about Coulter, and since you know that, what you have done is made a smear.

    Congratulations.


    Parent

    jim (none / 0) (#23)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 07:03:37 AM EST
      You know you like it when your sparring partners use disingenous tactics falsely portraying your positions  like that. Those are easy to counter but you have a much harder time when people counter you by refuting the positions you do espouse.

    Parent
    Deconstructionist (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 07:10:18 AM EST
    I don't see your point here.

    Jondee is implying that I am a fan of Coulter.

    I think he read my comments. I think you did.

    I think he is just making an attack by making a false claim.

    What should I have done?

    BTW - Note I didn't disagree about Rudi..

    Parent

    My points are: (none / 0) (#27)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 07:16:21 AM EST
     A: you love attention.

     B:you like to win arguments

     C: It;s easy for you to win arguments when your opponents simply make insults and false accusations.

     D: It's hard for you to win arguments when your opponents dissect your actual words rather than lying about what you said.

     

    Parent

    oh okay.... (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 07:16:38 AM EST
    my brain engaged as I hit the post button...

    Yes. Shooting down Jondee is much easier than say, Peaches.

    Actually though I enjoy a good discussion/debate, whatever. I have learned a lot by reading what is written,having to examine my own positions and doing research about both sides.

    Parent

    Not bad (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 07:22:48 AM EST
    Yes, I like to win.... to a fault sometimes. If you stay in large contract sales for 30 years that's a must.

    Do I like attention???? The positive kind, yes.

    Your turn.

    You enjoy exhibiting your orderly mind and ability to write very well structured arguments.

    Did you learn that as a lawyer, or is it a natural talent?

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#30)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 07:33:04 AM EST
     being a lawyer trains one to approach problems analytically and to construct logically ordered arguments.

      I also, in case it isn't self-evident, believe i have some degree of natural talent.

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:10:49 AM EST
    I also, in case it isn't self-evident, believe i have some degree of natural talent.

    I hadn't noticed. ;-)

    My background is in engineering, but I gave that up because it paid poorly, and I figured out that at best I would always be paid poorly. I have been out of it so long that I can hardly spell the word..

    Really good salesmen have the talent of being able to go from A to D without stopping at B or C. I made a good living and a good retirement based on that.

    Yes, we all have egos...

    Parent

    WOW (none / 0) (#36)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 11:54:30 AM EST
    Is that measurable by the size of your head?

    Parent
    Size of your head? (none / 0) (#37)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 11:55:40 AM EST
    I also, in case it isn't self-evident, believe i have some degree of natural talent.


    Parent
    You'll have to ask Deconstructionist (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 04:25:15 PM EST
    That's his statement...

    But based on what I have seen you need to bring help...

    Parent

    Coulter (none / 0) (#34)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:50:16 AM EST
    is the most frequently appearing quest commentater on the news channel that you've been plugging and linking to here for a good three years, Jim. Like it or not, its because of folks like you and outlets like Fox -- that still seems completely commited to promoting her career -- that Coulter has been able to maintain the appearence of having any credibility at all.

    Jondee - Folks like me? (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 04:37:56 PM EST
    First, what do you mean?

    Secondly, how do you know what I have done?

    Fact is, you don't.

    BTW - I also link to NYT, LAT, WaP, etc., etc.

    Is it your belief that people should only read/watch news programs that reflect their particular bias?

    In your case, I think the answer is yes. But the correct answer is, no.

    BTW - What do you think of this?

    The quote comes from Salon and is by Janie Smiley.

    "In a just world, Bush, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Feith and their underlings would be standing before a Senate committee investigating their catastrophic failures, and Packer's book would be Exhibit A." No. In a just world, these people would be taken out and shot.

    BTW  - In case you don't know who Jane Smiley is, link here.


    Parent

    OFF TOPIC POST (none / 0) (#45)
    by Sailor on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 06:24:22 PM EST


    Parent
    XX (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 09:39:16 PM EST
    You're right.

    Jondee, quit.

    Parent

    Sorry for the O.T (none / 0) (#35)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:56:30 AM EST


    Did anyone read Juror #9's HuffPo piece? (none / 0) (#40)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 01:22:48 PM EST
    I tried just now and couldn't get past the first page:
    Back to work. Our first witness is Marc Grossman. [...] Sitting 45 feet from Grossman during his testimony was the man who asked about Wilson, an extremely pale Scooter Libby, the former Chief of Staff and National Security adviser to VP Cheney. (I wondered if Libby's attorneys advised him to keep out of the sun, to emphasize the "tireless worker for the public good" look.)
    Is it just me, or does it sound like this juror had already formed opinions about the defendant before the trial even began?

    You are and (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 09:41:10 PM EST
    If you remember I noted that the jury would be an all Demo jury..

    That should mean something on appeal.

    Parent

    DA (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 09:47:14 PM EST
    So you think a juror is supposed to speculate????

    Wow. Evidently you've never been one.

    Libby: Inside the Jury Room | 46 comments (46 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment