Libby juror takes on Chris Matthews, Fineman and Dickerson
Kate O’Beirne [National Review]: My question for Libby Juror Ann [Redington] is this: When Patrick Fitzgerald in his closing talked about the cloud of Dick Cheney, what did you understand that to mean? Why is there a cloud over Dick Cheney?
Ann Redington: I think he was trying to sort of indict the whole administration. But, that wasn’t the point. We were there for one very narrow job and that was to determine whether or not Scooter Libby lied to the Grand Jury and whether or not he lied to the FBI and in doing so, did he obstruct justice?
*******************************************************88
If you talk to really good trial lawyers, they will, to a man [and woman], tell you how persuaded they are that in the overwhelming majority of trials, jurors, no matter how complex the matter, can see right through the verbiage and theatrics of the lawyers, and cut right to the chase.
This point is illustrated in the partial transcript, below, from tonight’s “Hardball,” discussion between four media members and one juror, Ann Redington, from the Scooter Libby case. [airing again this evening in the Chicago Metro area at 2:00 am (CST) on MSNBC, during the first quarter hour of the show]
Matthews is convinced and argues strenuously that the Scooter Libby case was about so much more than simple perjury. Matthews appears to believe that this case, if not technically, then at least in some other, broader, Hardball sense was about Bush Administration leaks and faulty intelligence. Never mind that the indictment of Libby says nothing about that. Chris knows better.
And Howard Fineman, Newsweek’s Chief Political Correspondent,[who often plays the role to Matthews of Johnny Carson’s Ed McMahon ] is there to say, as always: Chris, you are so right. And, fairandbalanced Fineman is also there to toss some mud at the Bush Administration for having the audacity to try to rebut the erroneous and false arguments of Joe Wilson.
Slate’s John Dickerson [who had a minor role in the Libby case history] and Matthews are apparently shocked to learn that Prosecutor Fitzgerald’s arguments may not have had a major impact on the jurors.
Only Kate O’Beirne [National Review] and the juror, of course, get it. The Libby case was about perjury: did Libby lie and in doing so, did he obstruct justice. [See here]. And, to determine the answer to those questions, the jurors look to the evidence, not to the lawyers’ arguments. Opening Statements and Closing Arguments are not evidence. The judge so instructs and the jurors listen to the instructions and adhere to that. The only people surprised by these courtroom procedures? Chris Matthews and his two merry media members: Fineman and Dickerson.
Note how the juror is overtalked by Matthews and Fineman. But, I can’t be too critical of that. I do it myself, sometimes. As a political talk show host, I am sympathetic with why Matthews does it—he has to keep the show moving, especially when a guest is stammering a bit. Nevertheless, you have to admire and respect the way juror Ann Redington, apparently not a TV professional, held her own and got her central points across: what the Libby case was about and what influenced the jury’s decision. Take a listen:
*********************************************************
Chris Matthews: Howard [Fineman, Chief Political Correspondent, Newsweek Magazine], let me ask you about this. It seems to me there are levels to this [Scooter Libby] case. One level is perjury. The other level was the leaking of the name of Valerie Wilson by several people, including Richard Armitage and also several people had a political interest in doing so. And, at the bottom of it all, relevant or not is the issue of how we developed the faulty intelligence for the War in Iraq. They are all related, aren’t they? They may not all be essential to the verdict here, but they are all related.
Howard Fineman: Well, they are certainly related, politically and they are all related, factually, if not legally. Because Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, had to show motivation in the case, Chris….He had to say, why was Libby doing all this and that required Fitzgerald to talk about what was a campaign to spread BAD INFORMATION or ANTAGANOSTIC INFORMATION about Joe Wilson and his wife out to the press and therefore to the public and that in turn was because of the aggressive case that the White House was making to sell the War to begin with and then to defend the sales efforts. So, even though those other two things [leaking by Bush Administration and faulty intelligence for Iraq War] were not directly on trial, I think they did, in that sense, come into it and I wondered if Ann would agree with that at least to the extent of showing motivation for why Libby was doing what he was doing. [Emphasis Supplied].
Ann Redington [Scooter Libby case juror]: Yes, I would agree with that, but just to reiterate, that wasn’t- that wasn’t what we were trying him based on--
Fineman [overtalking Ann]: No, I understand.
***************************************************
John Dickerson [Slate.com]: …What was the argument that prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald made that was the most powerful to you for why this was an important case.
Ann Redington [Libby case juror]: Unfortunately, I don’t think that his arguments were germane. It was really the evidence and the testimony that I thought was important so I didn’t really—
Matthews [overtalking juror Redington]: That’s amazing. You mean all the talk we got in the press about the brilliant summation and the long introduction of the case wasn’t as valuable as the testimony?
Ann Redington [Libby case juror]: It was brilliant. I was very impressed …Patrick Fitzgerald had to kind of on the fly come up with his summation. Brilliant-- but it doesn’t have anything to do with anything.
**********************************************
Kate O’Beirne: My question for Ann [Redington] is this: When Patrick Fitzgerald in his closing talked about the cloud of Dick Cheney, what did you understand that to mean? Why is there a cloud over Dick Cheney?
Ann Redington: I think he was trying to sort of indict the whole administration. But, that wasn’t the point. We were there for one very narrow job and that was to determine whether or not Scooter Libby lied to the Grand Jury and whether or not he lied to the FBI and in doing so, did he obstruct justice?
*******************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Show Host/Producer of "Public Affairs," and Executive Legal Recruiter doing legal search can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
******************
Ann Redington: I think he was trying to sort of indict the whole administration. But, that wasn’t the point. We were there for one very narrow job and that was to determine whether or not Scooter Libby lied to the Grand Jury and whether or not he lied to the FBI and in doing so, did he obstruct justice?
*******************************************************88
If you talk to really good trial lawyers, they will, to a man [and woman], tell you how persuaded they are that in the overwhelming majority of trials, jurors, no matter how complex the matter, can see right through the verbiage and theatrics of the lawyers, and cut right to the chase.
This point is illustrated in the partial transcript, below, from tonight’s “Hardball,” discussion between four media members and one juror, Ann Redington, from the Scooter Libby case. [airing again this evening in the Chicago Metro area at 2:00 am (CST) on MSNBC, during the first quarter hour of the show]
Matthews is convinced and argues strenuously that the Scooter Libby case was about so much more than simple perjury. Matthews appears to believe that this case, if not technically, then at least in some other, broader, Hardball sense was about Bush Administration leaks and faulty intelligence. Never mind that the indictment of Libby says nothing about that. Chris knows better.
And Howard Fineman, Newsweek’s Chief Political Correspondent,[who often plays the role to Matthews of Johnny Carson’s Ed McMahon ] is there to say, as always: Chris, you are so right. And, fairandbalanced Fineman is also there to toss some mud at the Bush Administration for having the audacity to try to rebut the erroneous and false arguments of Joe Wilson.
Slate’s John Dickerson [who had a minor role in the Libby case history] and Matthews are apparently shocked to learn that Prosecutor Fitzgerald’s arguments may not have had a major impact on the jurors.
Only Kate O’Beirne [National Review] and the juror, of course, get it. The Libby case was about perjury: did Libby lie and in doing so, did he obstruct justice. [See here]. And, to determine the answer to those questions, the jurors look to the evidence, not to the lawyers’ arguments. Opening Statements and Closing Arguments are not evidence. The judge so instructs and the jurors listen to the instructions and adhere to that. The only people surprised by these courtroom procedures? Chris Matthews and his two merry media members: Fineman and Dickerson.
Note how the juror is overtalked by Matthews and Fineman. But, I can’t be too critical of that. I do it myself, sometimes. As a political talk show host, I am sympathetic with why Matthews does it—he has to keep the show moving, especially when a guest is stammering a bit. Nevertheless, you have to admire and respect the way juror Ann Redington, apparently not a TV professional, held her own and got her central points across: what the Libby case was about and what influenced the jury’s decision. Take a listen:
*********************************************************
Chris Matthews: Howard [Fineman, Chief Political Correspondent, Newsweek Magazine], let me ask you about this. It seems to me there are levels to this [Scooter Libby] case. One level is perjury. The other level was the leaking of the name of Valerie Wilson by several people, including Richard Armitage and also several people had a political interest in doing so. And, at the bottom of it all, relevant or not is the issue of how we developed the faulty intelligence for the War in Iraq. They are all related, aren’t they? They may not all be essential to the verdict here, but they are all related.
Howard Fineman: Well, they are certainly related, politically and they are all related, factually, if not legally. Because Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, had to show motivation in the case, Chris….He had to say, why was Libby doing all this and that required Fitzgerald to talk about what was a campaign to spread BAD INFORMATION or ANTAGANOSTIC INFORMATION about Joe Wilson and his wife out to the press and therefore to the public and that in turn was because of the aggressive case that the White House was making to sell the War to begin with and then to defend the sales efforts. So, even though those other two things [leaking by Bush Administration and faulty intelligence for Iraq War] were not directly on trial, I think they did, in that sense, come into it and I wondered if Ann would agree with that at least to the extent of showing motivation for why Libby was doing what he was doing. [Emphasis Supplied].
Ann Redington [Scooter Libby case juror]: Yes, I would agree with that, but just to reiterate, that wasn’t- that wasn’t what we were trying him based on--
Fineman [overtalking Ann]: No, I understand.
***************************************************
John Dickerson [Slate.com]: …What was the argument that prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald made that was the most powerful to you for why this was an important case.
Ann Redington [Libby case juror]: Unfortunately, I don’t think that his arguments were germane. It was really the evidence and the testimony that I thought was important so I didn’t really—
Matthews [overtalking juror Redington]: That’s amazing. You mean all the talk we got in the press about the brilliant summation and the long introduction of the case wasn’t as valuable as the testimony?
Ann Redington [Libby case juror]: It was brilliant. I was very impressed …Patrick Fitzgerald had to kind of on the fly come up with his summation. Brilliant-- but it doesn’t have anything to do with anything.
**********************************************
Kate O’Beirne: My question for Ann [Redington] is this: When Patrick Fitzgerald in his closing talked about the cloud of Dick Cheney, what did you understand that to mean? Why is there a cloud over Dick Cheney?
Ann Redington: I think he was trying to sort of indict the whole administration. But, that wasn’t the point. We were there for one very narrow job and that was to determine whether or not Scooter Libby lied to the Grand Jury and whether or not he lied to the FBI and in doing so, did he obstruct justice?
*******************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Show Host/Producer of "Public Affairs," and Executive Legal Recruiter doing legal search can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
******************
<< Home