It is Tuesday and the "Scooter" Libby jury is still at it. Of course, as you probably know, they are down one special team member who, somehow, was exposed to media coverage over the weekend. I can't even begin to imagine how that would have happened! Was she checking the weather on CNN? Did she log on to her computer to check her e-mail? (I bet she had quite a few e-mails after 6 busy weeks on the this scandalous case.) Or did she just HAVE to know what was going to happen the Anna Nicole Smith's body once her 5 year old daughter got custody. We may never know. :(
So, now they are deliberating with 11 jurors only. Apparently Federal Law allows that, a fact I did not know until today. I wonder if the 4 alternate jurors knew that while they spent the last month of their lives listening to the same testimony as the "Chosen 12" did. But, I'll tell you what, those "Forgotten 4" cannot be happy. I can hear them in my head as clear as a bell.
Forgotten 4 Juror #1: "Are you telling me that I sat here taking 13 notebooks worth of notes, listening to a million witnesses all saying the same things, missed work, haven't seen my kids more than to kiss them good night for 6 weeks and now, yes now, after you toss someone off the jury, you are not even going to let me in on the fun?! You have GOT to be kidding me."
Forgotten 4 Jurot #2: "Hmm. I feel a little cold coming on. My throat is scratchy. Tell the judge, I am OUT of here."
Forgotten 4 Juror #3: "Damn, I can't remember my password to log onto my computer. I really want to check the news and see if anything interesting is going on, especially in Washington. I'll be real careful not to read anything about THIS case. Wink, wink."
Forgotten 4 Juror #4: "Wow, with this judge ruling like he has, there's no DOUBT I'll be deciding this case myself before close of business tonight." (Juror 4 is not too bright.)
Turns out that the prosecution really wanted alternate juror number one to empanelled. She was paying close attention (especially to the prosecutors) and her body language seemed to show she was favorable to their position. But, the defense won the motion and the judge kept the jury intact minus 1 instead of replacing the news junkie who just could not get through the weekend without peeking at CNN. (Or perhaps, my blog.)
The most interesting analysis I heard of this was that the defense did not want the jury to have to start deliberating again from scratch. That would put the final verdict further away from the time that the defense gave their VERY emotional (boo-hoo) closing argument and apparently, they think that the closer the jury's decision comes to the time they saw "Scooter's" lead defense lawyer cry, the better chance "Scooter" has of walking out of there a free man. That, right there, speaks volumes about the evidence presented in this case and the strength of each side's respective case.
My prediction: At least one conviction on the myriad of charges. The rest of the charges? Not sure yet.
And I guess, I can't really ignore this. It is true that the one jury member who refused to wear a red shirt with a white heart on it on Valentines' Day, is the very same member who was tossed from the jury. This is probably the best news of all for Libby. Does this lying, untrustworthy, snake of a man want a jilted woman deciding his fate? I doubt it.
More soon. Have a great day my friends.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Friday, February 23, 2007
Still Deliberating
The jurors are still talking it all over at the I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby trial. From what I heard on Imus this morning they asked for a bunch of arts and crafts materials, apparently to construct a big paper timeline. I'd like to get a look at it when they're done because I, too, can't keep all that I have read about this case straight, espeically the timing of certain big events. Has anyone else noticed that each article you read about the case seems to have the last 3 or so paragraphs that explain the sequence of events and cast of characters? It is odd to see those details every time but without them, nothing much makes sense.
I wonder if the jury will really go home today without coming out with a verdict or at least trying to convince the judge that they are deadlocked. I really doubt that any of them want to come back to court tomorrow or on Monday morning. (Alternative theory: There is one juror who absolutely hates his job SO much that he is stalling in order to get a couple of more days off.)
All kidding aside, I agree with what Howard Fineman said this morning. There are probably 1 or 2 jurors who are leaning towards voting for acquittal and the others are doing everything in their power to turn them around. Hence, the sticky notes, magic markers, and the other things currently being pillaged from the local elementary school art rooms.
So, if that is what is going on we are going to get a conviction or a hung jury. I really doubt that there are one or two holdouts for conviction. The evidence seems a little too strong for an acquittal, but maybe strong enough for a hung jury which I'm sure Libby would not complain too much about. I bet that would annoy cheney, though? Another opportunity for his name and actions to be dragged through the mud in a re-trial later this year. Wouldn't that be a shame.
Speaking of cheney....Did you know that in 1991 he predicted that if bush sr. went into Baghdad it would be a mistake that would end up in a quagmire? According to him 9/11 changed everything to such an extent that it is now ok to be mired in a quagmire. Oh man, when does it stop? Here's a link to a posting in today's Washington Post where I learned all this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html
That's all I got for today y'all. Enjoy the weekend.
I wonder if the jury will really go home today without coming out with a verdict or at least trying to convince the judge that they are deadlocked. I really doubt that any of them want to come back to court tomorrow or on Monday morning. (Alternative theory: There is one juror who absolutely hates his job SO much that he is stalling in order to get a couple of more days off.)
All kidding aside, I agree with what Howard Fineman said this morning. There are probably 1 or 2 jurors who are leaning towards voting for acquittal and the others are doing everything in their power to turn them around. Hence, the sticky notes, magic markers, and the other things currently being pillaged from the local elementary school art rooms.
So, if that is what is going on we are going to get a conviction or a hung jury. I really doubt that there are one or two holdouts for conviction. The evidence seems a little too strong for an acquittal, but maybe strong enough for a hung jury which I'm sure Libby would not complain too much about. I bet that would annoy cheney, though? Another opportunity for his name and actions to be dragged through the mud in a re-trial later this year. Wouldn't that be a shame.
Speaking of cheney....Did you know that in 1991 he predicted that if bush sr. went into Baghdad it would be a mistake that would end up in a quagmire? According to him 9/11 changed everything to such an extent that it is now ok to be mired in a quagmire. Oh man, when does it stop? Here's a link to a posting in today's Washington Post where I learned all this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html
That's all I got for today y'all. Enjoy the weekend.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby
As I typed the name of this post, I thought to myself, "What a dumb name." First, he decides to go by his middle name (which is fine), but then ends up with a nickname that makes him sound like a muppet. Or maybe a "Fraggle" although I doubt Scooter "rocks".
ANYWAY, we have apparently made it through a second day of jury deliberation without a verdict in his trial in which, if convicted, he could face up to 30 YEARS IN JAIL! Wow, that's a long time, eh? Although the truth is, that he'll probably never see even one single day in jail, because even if the jury returns a guilty verdict he'll be out on bail pending his appeal, an appeal likely to take long enough that even if he loses all they way up to the highest court, by then it will be late enough in bush's administration, that he'll just pardon him with very few consequences. (Love those run-on sentences.)
Despite that, I would like to see a guilty verdict as a solid example of just how corrupt this administration has been since before they even took office. I am glad Patrick Fitzgerald proceeded as he did and from what I can tell he has done a fantastic job, conviction or not.
So, what does it mean that the jury has not come back yet? I guess there are two likely possibilities. The first is that they are split somehow and so far they have not been able to convince enough others to change their minds as to get a unanimous verdict. Obviously, this scenario would be good for Libby. The second possibility I have come up with is that the jury is spending many hours pouring over the evidence and digesting the judge's instructions. This was a complicated and confusing case and maybe they just want to due their due dilligence before returning. They've been there hearing testimony and the like for over a month already, right? So what's a few more days? (Alternatively, you could argue that after a month they are going to do everything in their power to get the HELL out of there, justice be darned!)
Anyway, this case is really about DICK cheney. Fitzgerald would probably love to get a conviction against the muppet and turn him on Cheney to keep himself (Libby) out of muppet prison. Unlikely to work though because of that whole presidential pardon thing.
Speaking of which, I found it interesting that David Geffen soured on the Clinton's when Bill decided to pardon Marc Rich, but gave no such pardon to Lenord Peltier, who Geffen had personally asked Clinton to consider. (See Maureen Dowd's BRILLIANT column from yesterday's New York Times.)
But that is neither here nor there. (Whatever that means.) Another sleepless night awaits me, as I ponder what the jury will do to my least favorite fraggle.
Oh, I just came up with a 3rd theory for why the jury did not come back today. They obviously did not want to have to share tabloid headlines tomorrow with the judge in the Anna Nicole Smith case who awared custody of her body to....her 5 month old infant daughter. Good grief.
I hope you enjoyed this post, and if you want to laugh tonight, watch Scrubs.
One more question for you (all) to ponder. Do you think Libby was lying about being in the tail end of the plane that crashed on the island? I guess she wasn't under oath though, so it really doesn't relate, does it? Sorry.
ANYWAY, we have apparently made it through a second day of jury deliberation without a verdict in his trial in which, if convicted, he could face up to 30 YEARS IN JAIL! Wow, that's a long time, eh? Although the truth is, that he'll probably never see even one single day in jail, because even if the jury returns a guilty verdict he'll be out on bail pending his appeal, an appeal likely to take long enough that even if he loses all they way up to the highest court, by then it will be late enough in bush's administration, that he'll just pardon him with very few consequences. (Love those run-on sentences.)
Despite that, I would like to see a guilty verdict as a solid example of just how corrupt this administration has been since before they even took office. I am glad Patrick Fitzgerald proceeded as he did and from what I can tell he has done a fantastic job, conviction or not.
So, what does it mean that the jury has not come back yet? I guess there are two likely possibilities. The first is that they are split somehow and so far they have not been able to convince enough others to change their minds as to get a unanimous verdict. Obviously, this scenario would be good for Libby. The second possibility I have come up with is that the jury is spending many hours pouring over the evidence and digesting the judge's instructions. This was a complicated and confusing case and maybe they just want to due their due dilligence before returning. They've been there hearing testimony and the like for over a month already, right? So what's a few more days? (Alternatively, you could argue that after a month they are going to do everything in their power to get the HELL out of there, justice be darned!)
Anyway, this case is really about DICK cheney. Fitzgerald would probably love to get a conviction against the muppet and turn him on Cheney to keep himself (Libby) out of muppet prison. Unlikely to work though because of that whole presidential pardon thing.
Speaking of which, I found it interesting that David Geffen soured on the Clinton's when Bill decided to pardon Marc Rich, but gave no such pardon to Lenord Peltier, who Geffen had personally asked Clinton to consider. (See Maureen Dowd's BRILLIANT column from yesterday's New York Times.)
But that is neither here nor there. (Whatever that means.) Another sleepless night awaits me, as I ponder what the jury will do to my least favorite fraggle.
Oh, I just came up with a 3rd theory for why the jury did not come back today. They obviously did not want to have to share tabloid headlines tomorrow with the judge in the Anna Nicole Smith case who awared custody of her body to....her 5 month old infant daughter. Good grief.
I hope you enjoyed this post, and if you want to laugh tonight, watch Scrubs.
One more question for you (all) to ponder. Do you think Libby was lying about being in the tail end of the plane that crashed on the island? I guess she wasn't under oath though, so it really doesn't relate, does it? Sorry.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Desmond David Hume
So, did you see last Wednesday's episode of Lost?
OK, allow me to travel back in time a little and give you a hint of a post I should have written earlier.
Lost is my favorite TV show, probably ever. Friends who know of my 20 year (and counting) obsession with Star Trek might find that hard to believe. I sort of missed the first season but kept up with it just enough to know that I had to start watching. After I got my sister Maggie into it, she bought the first season on DVD and we caught up and have been hooked ever since. If you don't watch, but the show intrigues you, I say rent the first season DVD and fire it up. You'll know pretty quickly whether the show is for you or not. If it is your thing, then trust me, you are in for a real treat.
But, back to the present. Wednesday's episode of Lost was damn good. And it was quite different than most of the episodes. Instead of having a "back story" about one of the characters' life before their arrival on the Island, Desmond seemed to actually travel back in time to a point before his arrival. The show was entertaining, heartbreaking, and intellectually stimulating. It reminded me of Star Trek episodes that dealt with time travel but became a great Lost episode by staying true to the principals that make Lost unique.
Desomnd was referred to in the episode by his full name Desmond David Hume. Desmond is Scottish, as is one of David Hume, one of Scotland's most revered philospophers. This is surely not a coincidence. In the episode Desmond tries to find out whether he really IS travelling through time and asks his scientifically inclined friend whether time travel is really possible. Not that I am a David Hume expert by any stretch of the imagination, but my limited understanding of his philosophy leads me to believe that if Desmond David Hume were to ask David Hume those very questions, David Hume would certainly think that time travel was possible. Just because time generally travels forward does not mean it cannot travel backward. Anyone with knowledge of Hume who would be interested in giving a more detailed analysis of this is welcomed and encouraged to. (Rob?) And if you are inclined to doubt the connection connection between the fictional Hume and the real one, perhaps you should ask John Locke or John Locke whether they think the writers of Lost are well versed in western philosophy.
That's all for now.
OK, allow me to travel back in time a little and give you a hint of a post I should have written earlier.
Lost is my favorite TV show, probably ever. Friends who know of my 20 year (and counting) obsession with Star Trek might find that hard to believe. I sort of missed the first season but kept up with it just enough to know that I had to start watching. After I got my sister Maggie into it, she bought the first season on DVD and we caught up and have been hooked ever since. If you don't watch, but the show intrigues you, I say rent the first season DVD and fire it up. You'll know pretty quickly whether the show is for you or not. If it is your thing, then trust me, you are in for a real treat.
But, back to the present. Wednesday's episode of Lost was damn good. And it was quite different than most of the episodes. Instead of having a "back story" about one of the characters' life before their arrival on the Island, Desmond seemed to actually travel back in time to a point before his arrival. The show was entertaining, heartbreaking, and intellectually stimulating. It reminded me of Star Trek episodes that dealt with time travel but became a great Lost episode by staying true to the principals that make Lost unique.
Desomnd was referred to in the episode by his full name Desmond David Hume. Desmond is Scottish, as is one of David Hume, one of Scotland's most revered philospophers. This is surely not a coincidence. In the episode Desmond tries to find out whether he really IS travelling through time and asks his scientifically inclined friend whether time travel is really possible. Not that I am a David Hume expert by any stretch of the imagination, but my limited understanding of his philosophy leads me to believe that if Desmond David Hume were to ask David Hume those very questions, David Hume would certainly think that time travel was possible. Just because time generally travels forward does not mean it cannot travel backward. Anyone with knowledge of Hume who would be interested in giving a more detailed analysis of this is welcomed and encouraged to. (Rob?) And if you are inclined to doubt the connection connection between the fictional Hume and the real one, perhaps you should ask John Locke or John Locke whether they think the writers of Lost are well versed in western philosophy.
That's all for now.
Mike Lupica
Good day everyone.
I wanted to take the opportunity to recommend to you Mike Lupica's relatively new political column that he writes in the New York Daily News. I have been reading his sports columns for years and always thought he was among the very best sports writers. A couple of years ago, I noticed him slipping some political thoughts and ideas into his columns. Mostly jabs at the bush administration and their never ending blunders with regard to the Iraq Fiasco. Now he has a full- blown politcal column in addition to the great sportswriting he still does. Today he discusses the debate over whether Hillary Clinton needs to and/or should apologize for her Senate vote on 2002's Iraq Resolution. Here is the link for your convenience.
http://nydailynews.com/front/story/499486p-421108c.html
Also, I cannot more highly recommend a current piece of investigative journalism than the story that was broken in the Washington Post this Sunday by Dana Priest and Anne Hull. This is the story of "Building 18" where outpatients from Walter Reed live during their rehabiliation from war injuries. The original article and follow-up have been very enlightening. Here is a link to their original scoop. You may have to be a registered user of the Washington Post to open it and read it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701172.html?sub=AR
Well, that is all for now. I hope you are all having a nice Wednesday, and for those of you in the northeast that you are enjoying the nice temperatures we've been enjoying for the last couple of days.
I wanted to take the opportunity to recommend to you Mike Lupica's relatively new political column that he writes in the New York Daily News. I have been reading his sports columns for years and always thought he was among the very best sports writers. A couple of years ago, I noticed him slipping some political thoughts and ideas into his columns. Mostly jabs at the bush administration and their never ending blunders with regard to the Iraq Fiasco. Now he has a full- blown politcal column in addition to the great sportswriting he still does. Today he discusses the debate over whether Hillary Clinton needs to and/or should apologize for her Senate vote on 2002's Iraq Resolution. Here is the link for your convenience.
http://nydailynews.com/front/story/499486p-421108c.html
Also, I cannot more highly recommend a current piece of investigative journalism than the story that was broken in the Washington Post this Sunday by Dana Priest and Anne Hull. This is the story of "Building 18" where outpatients from Walter Reed live during their rehabiliation from war injuries. The original article and follow-up have been very enlightening. Here is a link to their original scoop. You may have to be a registered user of the Washington Post to open it and read it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701172.html?sub=AR
Well, that is all for now. I hope you are all having a nice Wednesday, and for those of you in the northeast that you are enjoying the nice temperatures we've been enjoying for the last couple of days.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
A Little More About Me
Hi everyone. I hope you all had a good weekend and that you were lucky enough to have a three-day weekend. As promised in my first blog entry last week, I want to give you some biographical information about myself.
I live in Huntington, Long Island, the town in which I grew up. My girlfriend lives in Boston and I am planning on moving there in the near future. I graduated from Harborfields High School in 1990, Skidmore College in 1994, and CUNY Law School in 2004. Between college and law school I worked mostly in the music retail business, starting out at Sountraks, Ltd. a great small CD store in Huntington, and then working at several Virgin Megastores in Manhattan and on Long Island. Props to my friend Tim McIntosh for hiring me and getting me started on a good path there. In 2000, sensing the change that was coming in the music biz, I started to look for an alternative career path and in August of 2001 I started my first semester of law school. I graduated and (somehow) passed the New York State Bar Exam on my first try. I worked with my dad on Long Island for one and a half years, and am now a contract attorney working in Mid-town Manhattan. The commute from Huntington to Manhattan is no fun, but thanks to my sister Mary, I only have to do it a few times a week. She lives in Manhattan and I often crash with her. Saves me MAD time and money. I come from a large family. I have SIX sisters AND a brother. They are all older than I. More on them in future postings for sure. For now, know that we are all very close.
I live in Huntington, Long Island, the town in which I grew up. My girlfriend lives in Boston and I am planning on moving there in the near future. I graduated from Harborfields High School in 1990, Skidmore College in 1994, and CUNY Law School in 2004. Between college and law school I worked mostly in the music retail business, starting out at Sountraks, Ltd. a great small CD store in Huntington, and then working at several Virgin Megastores in Manhattan and on Long Island. Props to my friend Tim McIntosh for hiring me and getting me started on a good path there. In 2000, sensing the change that was coming in the music biz, I started to look for an alternative career path and in August of 2001 I started my first semester of law school. I graduated and (somehow) passed the New York State Bar Exam on my first try. I worked with my dad on Long Island for one and a half years, and am now a contract attorney working in Mid-town Manhattan. The commute from Huntington to Manhattan is no fun, but thanks to my sister Mary, I only have to do it a few times a week. She lives in Manhattan and I often crash with her. Saves me MAD time and money. I come from a large family. I have SIX sisters AND a brother. They are all older than I. More on them in future postings for sure. For now, know that we are all very close.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Introduction and Welcome
Greetings Reader(s):
Thanks for stopping by. I decided to start this blog to give myself a forum for the thoughts and ideas that I often share with friends and family, I hope I'll be able to to entertain, inform, and accomplish more to be determined as I proceed. Thanks to my friend Bones Rodriguez for inspiring me to start this. His blogs are very good and I'll put the address for them up on here shortly so you can check them out. Today is February 16, 2007, one day after my 35th birthday. Wow, Dan, you're not a kid anymore. It is cold and sunny outside, 2 days removed from the icy, slushy mess that fell from the sky on Wednesday here in the New York Metro area.
Topics I think will get a fair amount of attention of this blog are: 1) The New York Mets, 2) My fledgling legal career and my quest to make it satisfying, 3) The upcoming 2008 U.S. Presidential Election and the current events that are shaping it every day, 4) The never-ending dumb things that go on with the Long Island Rail Road, 5)Lost, 6) Music and 7) The Weather.
I will do my best to make this blog entertaining and I promise that no entry will ever start with the following: "I am bored today."
Thanks again for stopping by. Please do check back whenever the desire to hits you. Next post will contain some biographical information about me for those reading who don't know me personally. (Will that ever even happen?)
Have a great day everyone.
Thanks for stopping by. I decided to start this blog to give myself a forum for the thoughts and ideas that I often share with friends and family, I hope I'll be able to to entertain, inform, and accomplish more to be determined as I proceed. Thanks to my friend Bones Rodriguez for inspiring me to start this. His blogs are very good and I'll put the address for them up on here shortly so you can check them out. Today is February 16, 2007, one day after my 35th birthday. Wow, Dan, you're not a kid anymore. It is cold and sunny outside, 2 days removed from the icy, slushy mess that fell from the sky on Wednesday here in the New York Metro area.
Topics I think will get a fair amount of attention of this blog are: 1) The New York Mets, 2) My fledgling legal career and my quest to make it satisfying, 3) The upcoming 2008 U.S. Presidential Election and the current events that are shaping it every day, 4) The never-ending dumb things that go on with the Long Island Rail Road, 5)Lost, 6) Music and 7) The Weather.
I will do my best to make this blog entertaining and I promise that no entry will ever start with the following: "I am bored today."
Thanks again for stopping by. Please do check back whenever the desire to hits you. Next post will contain some biographical information about me for those reading who don't know me personally. (Will that ever even happen?)
Have a great day everyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)