United States v. Libby

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article documents a current court case.
Information may change rapidly as the case progresses.
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
Please discuss this issue on the talk page or replace this tag with a more specific message.
This article has been tagged since February 2007.

United States of America v. I. Lewis Libby, also known as "Scooter Libby" (USA v. LIBBY, Case No. 1:2005-cr-00394-RBW) is the federal trial of former high-ranking George W. Bush administration official I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was indicted by a federal grand jury on five felony counts of allegedly making false statements to federal investigators, perjury for allegedly lying to a grand jury, and obstruction of justice for allegedly impeding the course of a federal grand jury investigation concerned with the leaking by government officials of the classified identity of a CIA officer, Valerie Plame (Valerie E. Wilson). Libby served as assistant to President George W. Bush, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, and assistant to the Vice President for national security affairs from 2001–2005. He resigned from his government positions hours after his indictment on October 28, 2005. The trial began on January 16, 2007. Pursuant to the grand jury leak investigation, Libby was convicted on March 6, 2007, on four counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements, and he was acquitted of one count of making false statements. His lawyers have announced that they will be seeking a new trial but that, if they do not get one, they will appeal Libby's conviction.[1][2][3]

The prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald "said he didn't expect anyone else to be charged in the case. 'We're all going back to our day jobs,' he said."[3][4] Speaking to the media after the verdict, Fitzgerald reiterated his earlier claims that he had been unable to formulate charges against anyone in the CIA leak grand jury investigation because of the obstruction of justice by Libby.[5]

Calls for Libby to be pardoned by President George W. Bush have been appearing in the press and other public media; some are featured in the "News" section of the Libby Legal Defense Trust.[6]

See main article: Plame affair

Contents

[edit] Background

Libby was indicted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on October 28, 2005 by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, following a 22-month investigation by a grand jury that first convened on October 31, 2003. On November 3, 2005, Libby appeared at his arraignment before Judge Reggie B. Walton and pled not guilty.[7]

The text of the filed indictment includes: one count of obstruction of justice (Title 18, United States Code, section 1503) for allegedly impeding the grand jury's investigation; two counts of perjury (18 USC §1623) for allegedly lying under oath before the grand jury on March 5 and March 24, 2005; and two counts of making false statements (18 USC §1001(a)(2)) and in connection with for making "materially false and intentionally misleading statements" to FBI agents who interviewed him on October 14 and November 26, 2004.[7][8]

On February 2, 2006, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton set Libby's trial date to January 8, 2007.[9]

On February 9, 2006, Murray Waas reported in The National Journal that Libby had testified to the grand jury that he had been authorized by his superiors to disclose classified information regarding intelligence estimates of Iraq's weapons programs. Waas identified Vice President Cheney as one such superior on the basis of unpublished statements of lawyers with knowledge of the situation and documents that Waas says were filed with the court.[8]

On February 23, 2006, a motion to dismiss was filed by attornies for Libby. The motion is based on the status of Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald acting as a principal officer requiring appointment by the President and confirmation by the Senate, making the existence of the special prosecutor extraconstitutional and in violation of the Appointments Clause (United States Constitution, Article II § 2).[10][11]

On April 5, 2006, court filings reveal that Libby had testified during the grand jury investigation about information that Vice President Cheney and President Bush had authorized disclosing. These filings are disclosed widely in the press and news media the following day. The original intent of the filing is to restrict Libby's access to further classified information in defense discovery.[12]

On April 13, 2006, Libby's lawyers indicated that neither Vice President Cheney nor President Bush ordered him to say anything about Valerie Plame. A court filing by Libby's defense team argues that Valerie Plame was not foremost on the minds of administration officials as they sought to rebut charges made by her husband, Joseph Wilson, that the White House manipulated intelligence to make a case for invasion. The filing indicates that Libby's lawyers don't intend to say he was told to reveal Plame's identity.[13] The court papers also state that "Mr. Libby plans to demonstrate that the indictment is wrong when it suggests that he and other government officials viewed Ms. Wilson's role in sending her husband to Africa as important" and that his lawyers also plan to call to the stand Karl Rove, who remained under investigation at that time.

On May 24, 2006, Fitzgerald filed a response to a motion by Libby's lawyers, offering summaries of Libby's grand jury testimony and excerpts from Libby's testimony of March 5, 2004 and March 24, 2004.[14][15]

On September 1, 2006, conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer described Libby's life as "having been ruined" for no reason and called on President Bush to pardon him.

On September 22, 2006, according to Matt Apuzzo for the Associated Press, Libby's attorney's reported that "Libby Plans to Testify in CIA Leak Trial" United States v. Libby in his own defense.[16]

On February 3, 2006, Walton set a trial date of January 8, 2007.[9]

On February 3, the defense subpoenaed The New York Times, its former reporter Judith Miller (who was in jail for 85 days after refusing to tell the grand jury about conversations she had with Libby), Time magazine and its reporter Matt Cooper, and Tim Russert of NBC News for documents related to the Plame affair. According to Pete Yost of the Associated Press, the subpoenaed reporters and organizations would have until April 7 to turn over the material or challenge the subpoenas:

The subpoena to Miller seeks her notes and other materials, including documents concerning Plame prepared by Miller and Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof.
Kristof wrote the first account of the criticism that Plame's husband was leveling at the Bush administration. Referring to Plame's husband, though not by name, a May 6, 2003, Times column by Kristof raised the possibility the Bush administration might have disregarded prewar intelligence suggesting Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.
Three weeks after Kristof's column appeared, Libby started making inquiries at the State Department about the unnamed envoy in Kristof's column, according to the indictment.
The subpoena to the Times also calls for:
— Documents of contacts between any Times employee and any of eight people, including then-CIA Director George Tenet and then-White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, regarding Joe Wilson.
—Documents concerning a recent Vanity Fair article in which Miller said she talked to many people in the government about Plame.
—Drafts of a personal account by Miller, published in the Times, about her grand jury testimony.
—Documents regarding Miller's interactions with a Times editor in which Miller may have been told to pursue a story about Joe Wilson and a trip he made to Niger on behalf of the CIA.[17]

Fitzgerald was named by Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey on December 30, 2003 to conduct the investigation into the Plame affair after then-Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself from the case due to conflicts of interest.[18] Fitzgerald was granted the full plenary power of the Attorney General in the Libby case, as clarified by Comey in letters of February 6, 2004, and August 12, 2005.[citations needed]

A motion to dismiss was filed by the defense on February 23, 2006, claiming that Fitzgerald, as acting Attorney General, is a "principal officer" under the Article Two of the United States Constitution, requiring official appointment by the President and confirmation by the Senate. [10][11]

On April 5, 2006, court filings reveal that Libby had testified during the grand jury investigation into the leak that Vice President Cheney and President Bush had authorized disclosing the information. These are disclosed widely in the press and news media the following day. The original intent of the filing is to restrict Libby's access to further classified information in defence discovery.[19]

[edit] Speculation about possible witnesses prior to the start of the trial

On December 19, 2006, news organizations reported that Vice President Dick Cheney would be called to testify as a witness for the defense and that "former New York Times reporter Judith Miller and NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert were expected to be prosecution witnesses" during Libby's trial, to begin in January 2007.[20][21]

[edit] Vice President Cheney

In May 2006, the Associated Press had reported that Patrick Fitzgerald was considering calling Vice President Cheney as a witness for the prosecution.[22] In December 2006, at a pretrial hearing, defense lawyer Theodore Wells reportedly said: "'We're calling the vice president.'"[20] If that had occurred, it would have marked the first time that a sitting Vice President was called to testify in a criminal trial.[23]

In a January 2007 interview with Wolf Blitzer, Cheney commented on the ongoing trial: "Now, Wolf, you knew when we set up the interview you can ask all the questions you want, I'm going to be a witness in that trial within a matter of weeks, I'm not going to discuss it. I haven't discussed with anybody in the press yet, I'm not going to discuss it with you today."[24]

Ultimately, Vice President Cheney was not called as a witness in the trial.[25]

[edit] The Trial

The trial in the case of the United States of America v. I. Lewis Libby began on 16 January 2007.[26] On March 6, Libby was convicted of four out of the five counts against him. He was found guilty of two counts of perjury in testimony before a federal grand jury, one count of obstruction of justice in a federal grand jury investigation, and one of two counts of making false statements to federal investigators. He was acquitted on the second count of making false statements (indictment count three).[2]

[edit] Press coverage of the trial

Blogs have played a prominent role in the press coverage of this trial. Scott Shane, in his article "For Liberal Bloggers, Libby Trial Is Fun and Fodder," published in The New York Times on February 15, 2007, quotes Robert Cox, president of the Media Bloggers Association, who observes that United States of America v. I. Lewis Libby is "the first federal case for which independent bloggers have been given official credentials along with reporters from the traditional news media."[27]

On January 3, 2007, the first team of bloggers to announce that they had been granted press credentials was Firedoglake, a progressive blog founded by Jane Hamsher.[28] Less than a week later, on January 9, the Media Bloggers Association (MBA) announced that several of its affiliated bloggers had been granted press credentials too.[29]

Among those representing the traditional press media — what many bloggers term the "mainstream media" (or "MSM") — reporter David Shuster began live blogging the trial for MSNBC on Hardblogger, an online feature linked at Hardball with Chris Matthews, as well as reporting on camera in segments of variious MSNBC News programs.[30] A transcript of Schuster's broadcast report on the first day of the trial, during which Schuster says that the prosecution summarized evidence to support its allegations that Vice President Dick Cheney was involved in Libby's actions relating to the Plame affair, is posted on several of these news blogs.[31]

Media Bloggers Association (MBA), which describes itself as a "non-partisan organization" for promoting blogging as a distinct form of media, presents a live media feed syndicating both liberal and right-wing blog posts. The MBA also has an agreement with the Associated Press to run coverage by bloggers on the AP wire.[32]

Some controversy arose among various bloggers about who is primarily responsible for acquiring Libby trial press credentials, with numerous mainstream-media accounts, including The Washington Post, giving Cox and his Media Bloggers Association credit:

...for the first time in a federal court, two of these seats [in the actual courtroom] will be reserved for bloggers. After two years of negotiations with judicial officials across the country, the Media Bloggers Association, a nonpartisan group with about 1,000 members working to extend the powers of the press to bloggers, has won credentials to rotate among his members. The trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the highest-ranking Bush administration official to face criminal charges, could "catalyze" the association's efforts to win respect and access for bloggers in federal and state courthouses, said Robert Cox, the association's president.

Robert Cox is trying to foster standards. His Media Bloggers Association won court credentials for bloggers....[33]

Marcy Wheeler blogged for Firedoglake as "emptywheel"
Marcy Wheeler blogged for Firedoglake as "emptywheel"

Bloggers from Firedoglake disputed some of these statements.[34][35] Scott Shane's article in The New York Times contains the following "appended correction":

[The] front-page article on Thursday about bloggers covering the perjury trial of I. Lewis Libby Jr. referred imprecisely to the role of Robert A. Cox, president of the Media Bloggers Association, in securing credentials. Mr. Cox negotiated access for his association, which was the first blogger group to be granted credentials to cover the trial. He did not negotiate on behalf of firedoglake.com and other blogs that received their credentials later.[27]

Shane concludes: "With no audio or video feed permitted, the Firedoglake 'live blog' has offered the fullest, fastest public report available. Many mainstream journalists use it to check on the trial."[27]

On February 7, 2007, during the examination of journalist Tim Russert, as covered on MSNBC, video clips of Libby's Grand Jury testimony were played; Russert's current testimony contradicts key parts of Libby's previous testimony, in that on the stand Russert denied that he told (or even could have told) Libby about Mrs. Wilson's working for the CIA, as Libby has claimed.[36][37]

On February 13, as the defense was beginning to present its case, however, defense lawyers told the court that neither Cheney nor Libby would be taking the stand.[23][38][39]

In addition to their blogging, Jane Hamsher (creator of Firedoglake), Marcy Wheeler (author of the recently-published book Anatomy of Deceit[40]), and/or Jeralyn Merritt, criminal defense attorney and founder of TalkLeft, who has been cross-posting at The Huffington Post, have also been appearing on camera via PoliticsTV.com at the end of most days to sum up that day's legal proceedings directly observed in the courtroom, providing links to these video programs in their online accounts. For example, they appeared on camera to present their views of February 14, the day the defense rested, and did a similar roundup at the end of the trial, covering the closing arguments for the prosecution and the defense, with the prosecution speaking last, as Merritt observed.

Both the defense and the prosecution presented their closing arguments on Tuesday, 20 February, and the next day, 21 February, the jury began deliberating whether to convict or to acquit Libby on some or all of the charges against him.[41][42][43]

Beginning on 26 February, the mass media reported that one of the twelve jurors had been "dismissed" because she "was exposed to information about the trial...but the judge allowed the panel to continue deliberations with 11 members."[44]

[edit] Verdict

The jury rendered its verdict at noon on March 6, 2007.[45] It convicted Libby on four of the five counts against him—two counts of perjury, one count of obstructing justice in a grand jury investigation, and one of the two counts of making false statements to federal investigators—and acquitted him on one count of making false statements.[46] Given current federal sentencing guidelines, which are not mandatory, the convictions could result in a sentence ranging from no imprisonment to imprisonment of up to 25 years and a fine of one million US dollars.[2] Given those non-binding guidelines, according to lawyer, author, New Yorker staff writer, and CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin on Anderson Cooper 360°, such a sentence could likely be between "one and a half to three years."[47] Sentencing is scheduled to occur in June 2007.[46][48] News media reported that his lawyers have announced their intention to appeal Libby's conviction.[2][4]

[edit] Comment on the verdict by a juror

As reported in CNN Newsroom, and subsequently on Larry King Live on CNN and by various other television networks, including MSNBC (on Scarborough Country), one juror––"Denis Collins, a Washington resident and self-described registered Democrat," who is a former reporter for The Washington Post and author of a book on espionage––"said he and fellow jurors found that passing judgment on Libby was 'unpleasant.' But in the final analysis, he said jurors found Libby's story just too hard to believe.... 'We're not saying we didn't think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of, but it seemed like ... he was the fall guy'.... Collins said the jury believed Libby was 'tasked by the vice president to go and talk to reporters.'"[2][49][50][51] Collins offers a day-by-day account of his experience as Juror #9 at the Libby trial in an "Exclusive" at The Huffington Post.[52]

[edit] See also

Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Wikisource has original text related to this article:

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Michael J. Sniffen and Matt Apuzzo,"Libby Found Guilty in CIA Leak Trial", Associated Press 6 March 2007, accessed 6 March 2007.
  2. ^ a b c d e "Libby Found Guilty of Perjury, Obstruction", CNN Newsroom 6 March 2007, accessed 6 March 2007.
  3. ^ a b "Libby Lawyer Demands New Trial After Conviction", CNN Newsroom 6 March 2007, accessed 6 March 2007.
  4. ^ a b "Jurors Convict Libby on Four of Five Charges: Cheney’s Ex-aide Faces Jail Time in CIA Leak Case; Sentencing Set for June", MSNBC 6 March 2007, updated 9:18 p.m., ET, accessed 7 March 2007.
  5. ^ Video clips presented on Hardball with Chris Matthews, MSNBC 6 March 2007, 7:00–8:00 p.m., ET; repeated on 7 March 2007, 3:00–4:00 a.m., ET.
  6. ^ Libby Legal Defense Trust: In the news. Accessed 7 March 2007.
  7. ^ a b "Indictment"PDF (152 KiB), United States of America v. I. Lewis Libby, United States District Court for the District of Columbia 28 October 2005, accessed 10 February 2007.
  8. ^ a b Murray Waas, "Administration: Cheney 'Authorized' Libby to Leak Classified Information", The National Journal 9 February 2006, accessed 13 March 2006.
  9. ^ a b John King, "Ex-Cheney Aide Gets Trial Date: Libby Faces Charges Stemming from Leak of CIA Operative's Name", CNN 3 February 2006, accessed 26 February 2007.
  10. ^ a b "Motion of I. Lewis Libby to Dismiss the Indictment and Memorandum in Support Thereof"PDF (1.67 MiB), United States of America v. I. Lewis Libby, No. 05-314, United States District Court for the District of Columbia 23 February 2006, accessed 17 March 2006.
  11. ^ a b "Ex-White House Aide Wants Charges Thrown Out", Associated Press 23 February 2006.
  12. ^ [1].
  13. ^ [2].
  14. ^ Patrick J. Fitzgerald, "Reply to the Response of I. Lewis Libby to Government's Response to Court's Inquiry Regarding News Articles the Government Intends to Offer at Trial"PDF (70.8 KiB), United States Department of Justice (Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 110 Filed 05/24/2006), 5 June 2004, rpt. by JustOneMinute (blog), accessed 13 March 2007 (10 pages).
  15. ^ Page 2 of "Exhibit A: In John Doe"PDF (516 KiB), (Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 110 Filed 05/24/2006), rpt. by JustOneMinute (blog), accessed 13 March 2007.
  16. ^ [3].
  17. ^ Pete Yost (Associated Press), "Libby Lawyers Subpoena Times, Other News Organizations", Newsday 16 March 2006. [Outdated URL].
  18. ^ James B. Comey, "Memorandum of Deputy Attorney General"PDF (100 KiB) (letter to Patrick J. Fitzgerald) 30 December 2003, [publication?], accessed 18 March 2006.
  19. ^ [4].
  20. ^ a b James Vicini (Reuters), "Cheney To Be Called to Testify in CIA Leak Case", The Boston Globe 19 December 2006, accessed 20 December 2006.
  21. ^ Matt Apuzzo (Associated Press), "Cheney to Be Defense Witness in CIA Case", San Francisco Chronicle 19 December 2006, accessed 20 December 2006.
  22. ^ Associated Press,"Special Counsel: Cheney May Be Called to Testify", MSNBC 26 May 2006.
  23. ^ a b Kevin Bohn, "Libby Trial Watchers Wonder What May Have Been", CNN 22 February 2007, accessed 2 March 2007.
  24. ^ Qtd. in a transcript of "Interview of the Vice President by Wolf Blitzer, CNN 'Situation Room'", originally broadcast on The Situation Room 24 January 2007, 9:50 a.m., ET-10:12 a.m., ET), press release, online posting by The Office of the Vice President, The White House 24 January 2007, News & Policies ("for immediate release").
  25. ^ Amy Goldstein and Carol D. Leonnig, "Libby Defense to Rest Without Testimony by Him or Cheney", The Washington Post 14 February 2007.
  26. ^ Q&A: Lewis 'Scooter' Libby Trial.
  27. ^ a b c Scott Shane, "For Liberal Bloggers, Libby Trial Is Fun and Fodder", The New York Times 15 February 2007 [appended correction].
  28. ^ Christy Hardin Smith, "Guess Who Is Going To DC?" Firedoglake (accredited press blog) 3 January 2007, accessed 15 February 2007.
  29. ^ Robert Cox, "Federal Court Credentials Bloggers", Media Bloggers Association 9 January 2007, accessed February 15, 2007.
  30. ^ David Shuster, "Prosecutors Introduce First Evidence at Libby Trial", Hardblogger (accredited press blog), MSNBC 23 January 2007, accessed 24 January 2007.
  31. ^ Jeralyn Merritt,"The Scooter Libby Headline for Day One", TalkLeft (accredited press blog), 23 January 2007, accessed 24 January 2007:

    The prosecutors said the evidence will make it clear that the very first government official who told Scooter Libby about Valerie Wilson, the wife of a critic and the fact that she was working at the CIA, the very first person who told him that was Vice President Cheney. The prosecutor said the evidence will also show Vice President Cheney himself directed Scooter Libby to essentially go around protocol and deal with the press and handle press himself, that Scooter Libby should be the one talking to the press to try to beat back the criticism of administration critic Joe Wilson.... Prosecutors also revealed today that Vice President Cheney himself wrote out for Scooter Libby what Scooter Libby should say in a conversation with [[Time (magazine)|Time Magazine reporter Matt Cooper. It was during that conversation when Scooter Libby provided confirmation to Cooper that Valerie Wilson worked at the CIA. In addition, there were some blockbuster revelations this morning about Scooter Libby’s actions before he testified to the FBI about the original leak. According to prosecutors, the evidence will show that Scooter Libby destroyed a note from Vice President Cheney about their conversations and about how Vice President Cheney wanted the Wilson matter handled. (Transcript of televised report by David Shuster, as prepared by ThinkProgress (Center for American Progress.)

  32. ^ "The Scooter Libby Trial"; cf. "Associated Press To Carry Bloggers' Coverage of Libby Trial".
  33. ^ Alan Sipress, "Too Casual To Sit on Press Row? Bloggers' Credentials Boosted With Seats at the Libby Trial", The Washington Post 11 January 2007, accessed 25 January 25, 2007 (registration required).
  34. ^ "About Those Jury Instructions", Firedoglake (accredited press blog) 15 February 2007, accessed 15 February 2007.
  35. ^ Cf. Marcy Wheeler, "On Bringing Me into the Feed", The Next Hurrah (blog), 8 February 2007, accessed 15 February 2007 (on process of gaining accreditation as a press blogger).
  36. ^ "Russert Testifies in Libby Perjury Trial: Packed Court Hears NBC Newsman Deny Identifying CIA Operative", Hardball with Chris Matthews, MSNBC 7 February 2007, accessed 9 February 2007 (free video clip provided). The Washington Post provides audio clips and transcripts of Libby's Grand Jury Testimony for March 5, 2004 and March 24, 2004, cited by Jeralyn Merritt, "Today's Russert Testimony". TalkLeft (accredited press blog) 7 February 2007, accessed February 9, 2007.
  37. ^ An audio clip and transcript of the complete testimony are presented by National Public Radio in "Legal Affairs: Lewis Libby's Complete Grand Jury Testimony", npr.org 9 February 2007, accessed 17 February 2007 (duration: 8 hours).
  38. ^ Amy Goldstein and Carol D. Leonnig, "Libby Defense to Rest Without Testimony by Him or Cheney", The Washington Post 14 February 2007.
  39. ^ Jeralyn Merritt, "The Defense Rests", TalkLeft (accredited press blog) February 14, 2007, accessed 16 February 2007.
  40. ^ Marcy Wheeler, Anatomy of Deceit: How the Bush Administration Used the Media to Sell the Iraq War and Out a Spy (Berkeley: Vaster Books [Dist. by Publishers Group West], 2007), ISBN 0-979-17610-7 (10), ISBN 978-0979-17610-4 (13).
  41. ^ Jeralyn Merritt, "Libby's Lawyers Ask for Four Hour Closing Argument", TalkLeft (accredited press blog) 16 February 2007, accessed 16 February 2007; provides links to court documents and various other media accounts.
  42. ^ Jeralyn Merritt, "Libby Closing Arguments", TalkLeft (accredited press blog) 20 February 2007, accessed 21 February 2007; cross-posted by the author at The Huffington Post; cf. List containing links to these February 2007 entries.
  43. ^ Jeralyn Merritt "Libby Trial: Missing the Forest For the Trees" (title rendered as corrected by author), TalkLeft (accredited press blog) 21 February 2007, accessed 23 February 2007; cross-posted by the author at The Huffington Post; cf. "Missing the Forest for the Trees".
  44. ^ Richard B. Schmitt, "Libby Juror Dismissed: Panel of 11 Continues Deliberations," The Los Angeles Times 27 February 2007, accessed 27 February 2007.
  45. ^ Introduction posted in Jeralyn Merritt, moderator, "Verdict in the Libby Trial", transcript, The Washington Post ("Live Online" discussion) 6 March 2007, 2:00–3:00 p.m., ET.
  46. ^ a b David Stout and Neil Lewis, "Libby Guilty of Lying in C.I.A. Leak Case", The New York Times 6 March 2007, accessed 6 March 2007.
  47. ^ Anderson Cooper 360°, 6 March 2007, 10:00 p.m–12:00 a.m., ET, live; scheduled to be repeated on 7 March 2007, 1:00–3:00 a.m., ET.
  48. ^ Simon Jeffery, "Libby found guilty in CIA leak trial", The Guardian 6 March 2007, accessed 6 March 2007.
  49. ^ "Juror: Libby Is Guilty, But He Was Fall Guy", CNN Newsroom 6 March 2007, accessed 6 March 2007.
  50. ^ Cf. Larry King Live and Scarborough Country, first aired 9:00–10:00 p.m., ET, accessed live; repeated at 12:00–1:00 a.m., ET.
  51. ^ Joe Strupp, . /eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003554336 "Former Colleagues at 'Wash Post' Discuss (Now Famous) Libby Juror", Editor & Publisher, 6 March 2007, 5:05 p.m., ET, accessed 6 March 2007.
  52. ^ Denis Collins, "Inside the Jury Room: Huffington Post Exclusive: What the Jury Thought, Day by Day, Witness by Witness, at the Scooter Libby Trial", The Huffington Post, 7 March 2007, accessed 7 March 2007.

[edit] Additional references

[edit] External links

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/n/i/United_States_v._Libby_5f31.html"