Breaking: Verdict reached in Libby Trial, will be read at noon, AP: Libby found guilty on 4 of 5 counts, Update: Video of Attorney’s statement
posted at 11:40 am on March 6, 2007 by Ian
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
3:30PM: Juror Denis Collins, who wrote a book about SPYING and is a former reporter for the Washington Post: “Tremendous amount of sympathy for Mr. Libby on the jury.” Adds “it was said a number of times ‘what are we doing with this guy here,’ where’s Rove, where’s you know, these other guys? We’re not saying we didn’t think Mr. Libby wasn’t guilty of the things we found him guilty of, but that it seemed like he was … the fall guy.”
What sounds like David Shuster, of MSNBC, asks Collins: Was he the fall guy for Vice President Dick Cheney?
2:41PM: Michelle quotes Fitzgerald and a juror who WROTE A BOOK ABOUT SPYING:
12:37pm Patrick Fitzgerald. Paraphrasing. “The results are sad. It’s sad that we have a situation in which a top official lied and obstructed justice. But it happened…We brought charges. We went to trial. And proved our case…Any lie under oath is serious. We cannot tolerate perjury…”
12:42pm Fitzgerald: “I do not expect to file any further charges.” Paraphrasing: We’re not going to be handing over our files to you guys to write articles or books or whatever.
12:54pm Denis Collins, one of the jurors, addresses the press. He identifies himself as a former reporter. “The primary thing that convinced us on most of the accounts was the alleged conversation with Russert…It was either false (didn’t happen) or did happen…Mr. Libby was either told by or told to about Mrs. Wilson at least nine times…we believed he had a bad memory…but contradicted by testimony that he had an incredible grasp of details…even if he forgot who told him, it seemed very unlikely that he would have not remembered about Mrs. Wilson…tremendous amount of sympathy for Mr. Libby on the jury…jury asked “Where’s Rove? Where’s the other guys?” It seemed like he was the fall guy.
Update @ 12:33PM: Libby’s attorneys make the following statement to the press:
***
11:52AM: Robert Novak on FOX News …
12:01PM: Stay waiting … no one has taken mic outside courthouse …
12:05PM: AP: LIBBY FOUND GUILTY on 4 of 5 counts.
12:09PM: Napolitano says Libby is facing 25 years …
12:12PM: Thumbnails of all five charges (click for larger image):
12:16PM: Brett Baier says White House is expected to make a statement at 12:30’s White House press briefing with Tony Snow Dana Perino.
12:18PM: CNN’s Blitzer: Libby threw “sand in the eyes” of investigators.
12:23PM: Still waiting for Libby’s attorneys to address the press …
12:26PM: Sen. Harry Reid: “I welcome the jury’s verdict, it’s about time someone be held accountable.” Adds Bush must pledge not to pardon Libby …
12:28PM: Mrs. Libby unable to present herself to the cameras … Libby’s team:
12:29PM: Libby’s attorney: We “intend to file a motion for a new trial and if that is denied we will appeal the conviction. And We have every confidence that ultimately Mr. Libby will be vindicated.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
bout’ time.
sunny on March 6, 2007 at 11:41 AM
Drudge siren.
Nice.
Slublog on March 6, 2007 at 11:44 AM
I question the timing. (It’s obviously intended to preempt Limbaugh.)
But in all seriousness, since it took so long to get a verdict, it’s hard to imagine a conviction. As long as the jurors have been in deliberations, they probably can’t all agree on their recollections of the testimony they heard just a few weeks ago. Under the circumstances, Libby can scarcely be guilty of a crime for having a different recollection of a phone conversation from the other participant.
The Monster on March 6, 2007 at 11:44 AM
Wait I thought it was Roves fault ?
/// angry moonbat frown
William Amos on March 6, 2007 at 11:47 AM
Heh. Matt Cooper’s lawyer on FOX just said that nobody’s going to be happy if Libby is found guilty.
Greg Tinti on March 6, 2007 at 11:49 AM
Remember when these guys reported that their secret sources told them Rove was going to be charged in a day or two…. roughly a year ago…. I find it interesting that (at the moment) the site that has been obsessed with this case all the way through isn’t headlining it right now:
http://www.truthout.org/
RightWinged on March 6, 2007 at 11:56 AM
All I know is that my lunch was guilty of being delicious.
albo on March 6, 2007 at 12:03 PM
No way, man. It exists.
SEALED VERSUS SEALED PROVES THE CASE!
Fitzmas will be here any day now.
Slublog on March 6, 2007 at 12:06 PM
Guilty
RightWinged on March 6, 2007 at 12:06 PM
What a bunch of sh**
RightWinged on March 6, 2007 at 12:06 PM
Scooter Libby gets a four… out of five.
Savage on March 6, 2007 at 12:07 PM
he’ll appeal, Andrea Mitchell is screwed.
jp on March 6, 2007 at 12:08 PM
Happy Fitzmas…
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on March 6, 2007 at 12:10 PM
The HuffPo crowd is preemptively pissed about a Bush pardon.
RightWinged on March 6, 2007 at 12:10 PM
Sydney Bristow finally beat that evil Arvin Sloane!
Jim Treacher on March 6, 2007 at 12:11 PM
He is guilty then - of what exactly…
I’d like to see an explanation of what he did that was against the law - and have it not take up a whole page of text.
harumph…
Coastian on March 6, 2007 at 12:12 PM
Just so we’re clear… OJ “not guilty”, but Libby “guilty”?
RightWinged on March 6, 2007 at 12:12 PM
Any Republican tried in DC = hosed.
Hoodlumman on March 6, 2007 at 12:14 PM
Good! I don’t know a thing about this trial, but I do know the Huffpo folks. Anything that upsets those moonbats and their psychotic leader is a good thing.
csdeven on March 6, 2007 at 12:15 PM
cleared on count 3 but guilty on 5? Confused because I’m not bright enough.
sunny on March 6, 2007 at 12:15 PM
And in a few years, Libby will write a book: “If I Had Been the Leaker.”
Slublog on March 6, 2007 at 12:16 PM
It is not like he stuffed classified documents down his pants or was found with a freezer full of cash. Oh, that’s right - double standards are the rage in Washington these days.
jman on March 6, 2007 at 12:17 PM
Ian,
Since Ive not followed this precisely as I maybe should have, can we get a laymans term explanation on the convictions??
Viper1 on March 6, 2007 at 12:18 PM
First Jeff Gannon, now Scooter.
How many more, Mr. Speaker? How many more must go?
Slublog on March 6, 2007 at 12:20 PM
Viper,
Click on the thumbnails I’ve provided. They explain what the charges are.
Ian on March 6, 2007 at 12:20 PM
The leaker of what?
Esthier on March 6, 2007 at 12:21 PM
Interesting point.. what did that net Berger? A drop in the bucket fine for someone with Clinton money, and being banned from the archives for a handful of years. Harsh. Libby doesn’t remember casual conversation mixed in with hundreds of others, in which he clearly had no idea Plame was covert (which by most accounts SHE WASN’T ANYWAY). Bush critic Armitage is now KNOWN TO BE THE “LEAKER”. But Libby, who like witness Tim Russert (supposedly one of the most devestating witnesses to Libby) has given two different stories…. on account of what happened, then another which amounted to “I don’t really remember exactly”. Is Russert going to be charged too? They both essentially did the same exact thing.
RightWinged on March 6, 2007 at 12:22 PM
This has to be the stupidest thing in history. He lied about what he said to TIM RUSSERT. There was no crime committed. Tie Me Kangaroo down sport.
tomas on March 6, 2007 at 12:24 PM
White house
pardonreaction coming soon. Split screen on Fox.sunny on March 6, 2007 at 12:25 PM
They really need to be pissed.
Ouabam on March 6, 2007 at 12:25 PM
Presidential pardon in 5..4..3..2…..
JG2K6 on March 6, 2007 at 12:25 PM
Of…um…secret stuff.
Superdupersecret stuff.
Ask Armitage.
Slublog on March 6, 2007 at 12:25 PM
I don’t understand how can he be guilty if there never was a crime commited?
ChrisIansNana on March 6, 2007 at 12:26 PM
WTF? Thanks Wolf “so poor, and so black” Blitzer.
By the way folks, it’s really on now. The Dems smell blood in the water. We already saw news this week that they’re going to be handing down subpoenas like crazy, and there are movemens in many states for impeachment. Keep in mind that the Democrats don’t want anything good to get done over the next few years, or they can’t win the White House (this is how they always operate… make negative things happen, and positive things appear negative through the media to win elections). The Dems are going to be focused on nothing but taking down Bush and the GOP and this emboldened them. Don’t expect anything but more dividing of the country in the next couple years. At least we know Hillary can’t win the general election, but this is no good for our military serving overseas or our country in general.
RightWinged on March 6, 2007 at 12:26 PM
Harry Reid worried about pardon as well.
sunny on March 6, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Martha Stewart and Lewis Libby have made one thing clear. If a cop wants to talk to you, refuse to say anything to him other than “I need to speak to my attorney”.
The Monster on March 6, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Good point.
Slublog on March 6, 2007 at 12:28 PM
While you guys are right, Bush should toss a pardon out there, I don’t know if he has the balls. This case has already been put to the American people as a “leak case” and this will be seen as “Bush sent out his cronies to leak this woman’s name and put her in danger, and then when they got caught, he pardoned them”. Of course that’s bull, but if you know anything about our media, you know that’s how it would go down.
RightWinged on March 6, 2007 at 12:29 PM
a DC jury that would probably never find Marion Barry guilty of using crack when he’s caught on tape but they convict a guy of having a bad memory.
madmonaco on March 6, 2007 at 12:29 PM
So when did we change the Constitution to allow the Majority Leader of the Senate to dictate the limits of executive power?
If I were Bush, that would p*ss me off. A lot.
The president should, in his statement later today, wave a pardon around. Just for kicks.
Slublog on March 6, 2007 at 12:31 PM
The prosecution did not say a crime (outing of agent) had not been committed; they said they were not indicting on that. The crime re Libby is simple: lying to the FBI and to a grand jury is a big, big, big deal.
honora on March 6, 2007 at 12:33 PM
he should pardon libby and fire Fitzgerald
jp on March 6, 2007 at 12:34 PM
dead thread…
IrishEi on March 6, 2007 at 12:35 PM
If there’s a pardon, it will be around Christmas 2008. There’s no reason to issue one now. Libby will probably be free on bond while the appeals run their course.
rw on March 6, 2007 at 12:36 PM
Interesting this comes right after President Bush spoke….
there are no coincidents in D.C.
Tru2my2 on March 6, 2007 at 12:36 PM
If this Plame thing is all fluff, why did the CIA ask for it to be investigated by the SP?
Actually, I don’t believe there was any attempt to deliberately out Plame; I do believe there was an effort to discredit Wilson by way of Plame.
Remember, Libby is not being held guilty of leaking anything. He is being held guilty of lying to the FBI and the grand jury. Big difference.
honora on March 6, 2007 at 12:36 PM
I think this whole case has been a joke and Patrick Fitzgerald should have to account for wasting everyone’s time and our tax dollars on this charade. The fact that the Wilsons are gonna profit off of some sham movie on all this makes it all the more angering. I hope Bush does issue a pardon.
CP on March 6, 2007 at 12:38 PM
No, but considering they won’t prosecute the admitted “leaker” the implication is that they know it isn’t a crime but are not willing to openly admit it.
If it is a crime, wouldn’t they be obligated to prosecute Armitage?
Esthier on March 6, 2007 at 12:38 PM
indeed
To a reasonable person, this is much ado about less than nothing. To the moonbats, it’s a signal of open season on their opponents - no matter if there is an actual crime or not.
harumph…
Coastian on March 6, 2007 at 12:39 PM
When does the trial of the NY Times leakers start?
Dave Shay on March 6, 2007 at 12:39 PM
Unless yer name is Bill Clinton then it’s a Vast RightWinged Conspiracy
RichSchein on March 6, 2007 at 12:39 PM
I like Peta Wilson’s LaFemme Nikita much more.
allie on March 6, 2007 at 12:40 PM
I wonder if it’s like “Christmas morning” all over again over in Russert’s newsroom?
CP on March 6, 2007 at 12:40 PM
He claimed Cheney sent him. Doesn’t it seem relevant to you that it was his wife who sent him instead?
Really though, they had his own words to hang him on. Wilson himself admitted that a meeting between Iraq and Niger had taken place. In fact, before coming out as he did in the op ed, Wilson argued against going to Iraq because he believed Saddam had nukes.
Esthier on March 6, 2007 at 12:42 PM
Because everyone, including those who wrote the laws, say that Plame wasn’t covered under that law. Further, there had to be intent to out a covert agent. No evidence shows that Libby even knew she was covert (because she wasn’t), and the ONLY reason this trial even happened is to appease Democrats who would have been defacating on the national mall if some charges weren’t brought. But again, tha “leak” (which wasn’t) was dont by the Bush critic Armitage, we all know this.
Now, why did the CIA ask for an investigation? Can you imagine if they didn’t!
But this guys has been convicted of not remembering exactly how a few brief conversations, mixed in with hundreds of others, went. Russert had the same problem. If you’re an important person and have dozens of conversations a day with big shot reporters and government officials, and when asked about it years, months, or even weeks later do you really think it’s that easy to remember the exact way those conversations went down? Maybe Libby should have said he doesn’t remember.. but what if he thought he did? My sister and mom and I get in to little arguments are a fairly regular basis because one of them says that the other said something, but the other has absolutely no recollection of it, or says that it was in fact the other one that told them. I’m sure we all experience this pretty regularly, and our situations don’t even come close to Libby’s.
RightWinged on March 6, 2007 at 12:43 PM
I hope Libby gets as much jail time for lying under oath as Willie Jeff did.
eeyore on March 6, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Unbelievable.
Fitzgerald put on one of the most pathetically weak cases you could possibly imagine, but since the trial was held in DC, a city whose residents are largely sufferes of BDS, Libby gets convicted.
My faith in the jury system is now completely shattered.
Un. Freakin’. Believable.
thirteen28 on March 6, 2007 at 12:47 PM
Burn the Witch!
Lehosh on March 6, 2007 at 12:48 PM
The trial has nothing to do with leaking anything, it’s all about perjury and obstruction of justice, you know lying to Federal investigators and the Grand Jury?
You guys seemed to think those crimes were a pretty big deal when Clinton was the one committing them.
JaHerer22 on March 6, 2007 at 12:48 PM
They need to request a change of venue to Virginia.. That would take care of it.
madmonaco on March 6, 2007 at 12:50 PM
It wasn’t when Clintoon “did not have sexual relations with that woman”
wytammic on March 6, 2007 at 12:50 PM
They got their little fish. Now they will methodically move up the food chain.
Valiant on March 6, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Not remembering you said something and “not remembering” that you humped some skank in the oval office are a tiny, tiny bit different, no?
Lehosh on March 6, 2007 at 12:51 PM
What did Clinton get, oh thats right nothing so Libby should get a book deal and go home right.
djohn669 on March 6, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Sure, it’s a miscarriage of justice, a travesty, it flies in the face of reason, Blah, Blah, Blah.
And yes, what Sandy Berger did was much worse. Again, Blah, Blah, Blah.
The bigger question is when will the Bush Administration “get it”?
WTF was Libby doing thinking that he could trust the likes of Russert, Cooper, Miller, and their ilk. Just don’t deal with these leftist punks. How hard is that to understand. Reminds me of the punch line to that old joke, “But you knew I was a snake when you invited me in.”
I’m hoping against hope that there’s a silver lining here and that the President and his ineffectual Attorney General will wake up, but I wouldn’t bet on it.
In the meantime, I’m not going to waste any time worrying about Libby’s fate. He wasn’t guilty of outing an undercover CIA agent, but by trying to be a crony of Tim Russert, he’s guilty of being stupid.
there it is on March 6, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Tim Burton on March 6, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Thanks Ian
Viper1 on March 6, 2007 at 12:56 PM
guilty of perjury…? wouldn’t that make him the new Democratic hero?
Opinionnation on March 6, 2007 at 12:57 PM
That was because Clinton wsa committing them.
RightWinged on March 6, 2007 at 12:57 PM
I would think so, but this is not my area of expertise.
honora on March 6, 2007 at 1:00 PM
If Bush had any balls this pathetic charade of a case would have never even gotten this far. There was never any violation of the IIPA, Plame was not covert at the time of the leak and hadn’t served overseas in 5 years, which was what the investigation was supposed to be about. That was known before a special prosecutor was ever appointed, but Bush and his DOJ bowed to political pressure to appease the left instead of standing and fighting and look what it got them.
thirteen28 on March 6, 2007 at 1:03 PM
My understanding is that Cheney asked the CIA to investigate the Niger thing. Plame was brought into the mix by virtue of her position–was it funny business sending her own husband? Well he has bona fides in that area, but doesn’t sound kosher. Which is not to say that Cheney isn’t being disingenous–he asked the CIA to investigate and that’s what they did.
The big question is: where is the report? When this question was posed to Tenet, his response was “you’ll have to ask the vice president”
Curiouser and curiouser.
honora on March 6, 2007 at 1:05 PM
I’m outraged Ian- it has been 30 whole minutes since we received an update!
Valiant on March 6, 2007 at 1:07 PM
Fitzgerald stated the case is closed, no new charges. Its over, except for Libby appealing and hopefully getting this show trial moved to Virginia.
jp on March 6, 2007 at 1:08 PM
Oh please. Of course it was a big deal, but the Senate did not find him guilty. That’s how the system works. Helpful hint: don’t lie to a grand jury and you won’t have to worry about this stuff.
honora on March 6, 2007 at 1:08 PM
You guys hear the reporters talking to the juror? “Cheney!? Rove!? Cheney!? Cheney!? Cheney!? Was he covering for Cheney!?”
The juror admits that the jury was saying “where is Rove”, etc. because they didn’t understand why it was Libby on trial. Does that sound like a non-partisan jury? They weren’t trying a Rove case, but they wanted him to be on trial?! Wow!!! I’m not a lawyer, but I’d like to think that could be used in an appeal or something.
RightWinged on March 6, 2007 at 1:09 PM
I find it ironic that this juror is unable to remember exactly things that happened just in the last ten days.
rw on March 6, 2007 at 1:11 PM
I’m still catching up with this juror, as I had paused my dvr earlier… he’s now said “some jurors, commented at some point ‘i wish we weren’t judging Libby…this sucks…we don’t like being here, doing this’”
This was after more talk about how they wished it had been Rove on trial. Again, wtf kind of jury is this!? I thought it was a jury of your peers… not a jury of Kos Kids.
RightWinged on March 6, 2007 at 1:13 PM
Wow, the more I listen to this guy, the more this jury sounds like a bunch of friggin’ clowns who don’t even agree on the facts of the case. I mean, that’s fine not to agree, but when they’re basing the case mainly on Russert (according to him) but they can’t agree on whether the conversation even happened… how can you convict?
RightWinged on March 6, 2007 at 1:15 PM
Your understanding of the case is flawed from the beginning then.
thirteen28 on March 6, 2007 at 1:15 PM
Bush’s approval rating is so low right now, I would be OUTRAGED! if he didn’t pardon Libby.
The crux if the case is simple; did Libby intentionally lie or did he forget. Bush should step up to the plate and say, “I know Scooter. Scooter is not a liar. Scooter is forgetful. I’m granting him a pardon.”
natesnake on March 6, 2007 at 1:16 PM
So let me get this straight:
Libby says he didn’t leak it.
Armitage admits he did.
Fitzgerald says Libby lied about leaking it.
DC Jury rejects the facts and votes guilty…
How long till someone says that this is proof that Bush intentionally lied to get us into war?
Tim Burton on March 6, 2007 at 1:16 PM
And they wonder why the Bush administration never wants to talk to the media…because they lie and cover their skeletons in the closet to protect themselves.
msipes on March 6, 2007 at 1:20 PM
I agree I’m much more likely to remember a sexual encounter than who I told what and when I told them.
But then I’m sure you’ll agree thatthe identity of our covert agents are more important to national security than the location of the First Penis.
JaHerer22 on March 6, 2007 at 1:21 PM
This is a total miscarriage of justice!
Who was in the Jury? 12 Chimpanzees, or a gaggle of left wing, liberal “Truthers?”
William
William2006 on March 6, 2007 at 1:21 PM
Jeherer22, you are such a worthless diverting troll.
RightWinged on March 6, 2007 at 1:26 PM
I hate to say this, but the Bush administration has brought this on itself. If Bush had plugged the borders and done a good job on the war, he would have been too popular to touch. Democrats are weather vanes, they just do whatever’s popular. Like RightWinged said, now they smell blood in the water. The Bush administration is pretty well screwed.
PRCalDude on March 6, 2007 at 1:30 PM
But that isn’t my concern… the problem is the country is screwed. Look at the damage to the war, etc. that the Dems have been able to do via the media when they were out of power.
RightWinged on March 6, 2007 at 1:34 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »