David Shuster
by David Shuster, Hardball correspondent
It was dramatic, confrontational, and the newest chapter in a bitter political feud that began four years ago.
-
- In November 2003, Ann Coulter wrote a column attacking John Edwards and accusing him of using his son’s death for political gain. Coulter wrote: “If you want points for not using your son’s death politically, don’t you have to take down all those ‘Ask me about my son’s death in a horrific car accident’ bumper stickers?” The shocking comments ignited a political fire storm.
- Earlier this year, Coulter continued to target Edwards when she used a derogatory word to describe him at a conservative political conference.
Coulter at CPAC conference, on Edwards: "I was going to have a few comments on the other democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word faggot, so I’m kind of at an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards, so I think I’ll just conclude here and take your questions."
CONTINUED >>
There is one documentary film maker these days who stirs more passions than most politicians combined. His name is Michael Moore. And the controversial director, producer, artist and Michigan native is back with a new movie. Today, my producer Jen Yuille and I managed to corner Michael Moore in a Capitol Hill hearing room and interview him about “Sick-o." (video) The movie argues for taking the “for profit” side of health care completely out of it while giving health insurance to every American.
Moore was wearing his trade sartorial combination: tennis shoes, suit pants, untucked shirt, and a jacket. But, it was a bit surprising to see him without a baseball cap. Every time I’ve seen him before, starting with his film “Roger and Me” or “Fahrenheit 9-11,” he wears a baseball cap.
In any case, we started by asking Moore about the general criticism of his views on health care. He joked, “I expect no criticism.” Then he became a bit more serious. He said, “millions of Americans have been suffering through this system, dealing with these lousy HMO’s. You have 47 million who don’t have insurance. I think there will be a groundswell of support to fix this very broken system.”
CONTINUED >>
Tonight in an exclusive interview on “Hardball with Chris Matthews,” one of the jurors who just convicted Scooter Libby for perjury and obstruction of justice, decried the narrow focus on Scooter Libby and said that because Libby was the only official charged and because he was not charged with the leak itself, Libby should now be pardoned. WATCH VIDEO
Ann Redington says she does not follow the news and came into the Libby trial with a “blank slate” about the CIA leak story. Tonight, she told Hardball, “it kind of bothers me that there was this whole big crime being investigated and he got caught up in the investigation as opposed to in the actual crime that was supposedly committed.” Asked if she wants a pardon for Libby “out of sympathy” and Redington replied, “Yes.”
CONTINUED >>
UPDATED WITH VIDEO
While Ari Fleischer’s testimony about a July 7, 2003 lunch with Libby appears to be the most dramatic testimony against Libby so far, inside the courtroom this has also been the first time in the trial we’ve noticed every juror/alternate appearing to write down everything the witness is saying. Fleischer is answering his questions by looking at the jury as he responds, and as Fleischer testified about being told by Scooter Libby over lunch that “Ambassador Wilson was sent (to Niger) by his wife, she works at the CIA, and she works in the CIA’s Counter Proliferation Division,” all of the jurors/alternates were writing in their notebooks. A few minutes later, during another question, the jurors all looked down and wrote in their notebooks again when Fleischer said, “The information about Wilson’s was wife was news to me. It was the first time I had ever heard it.”
Watch Shuster's report from Hardball
In the prosecution effort to prove that Scooter Libby knew about Valerie Wilson before he spoke with reporters... prosecutors today introduced their first document into evidence establishing that Libby knew the name “Valerie Wilson” in June 2003. This followed the testimony of two other government officials (another at the CIA and an undersecretary of state who testified they told Libby about Valerie Wilson in early June 2003.)
The document shows the handwritten notes of Scooter Libby’s morning CIA briefer Craig Schmall from June 14, 2003. Schmall testified that he wrote down notes on the table of contents for the daily brief that reflect either “reaction” from Libby to issues presented, questions the CIA needed to answer or “feedback.”
CONTINUED >>
The jury is set and the opening arguments will begin Tuesday morning in the case of the U.S. v. Libby.
Here are Mr. Libby’s 12 peers – nine women, three men -- who will be considering the evidence and rendering a verdict of guilty or not guilty on five criminal counts:
CONTINUED >>
Judge Reggie Walton and the attorneys in the Libby case were greeted this morning by a string of prospective jurors who didn’t have strong feelings one way or the other about the Bush administration and the war in Iraq. Out of the nine D.C. citizens questioned this morning, only two said they could not be “fair” and judge the case strictly on what is presented in court. So, one after the other, seven of the jurors who were questioned this morning were quickly approved. And the court has now gone beyond the “36” needed for the second round. (They actually approved a 37th.)
The bottom line is that we will know by 4 p.m. today who will sit on the Libby jury and determine whether his testimony under oath during the leak investigation, prompting the charges against him, were honest mistakes or deliberate lies. The court has given attorneys in the case until 3 p.m. to consider their “strike list” of potential jurors. In addition, the court is now conducting a “criminal background check” on the 37 jurors in the pool.
At 3 p.m., attorneys on both sides will inform the court of their “peremptory challenges.” The defense gets 12; the prosecution has eight. Some strikes may be of the same person, but in any case, just after 3 p.m. today, we should know who has been “struck” and who remains. Then, of those who remain, the first 12 will comprise the jury, the next four will be alternates.
Judge Reggie Walton has “another matter” he is dealing with most of today unrelated to the Scooter Libby case. So, the pool of potential jurors will not be returning until Monday. This break in the “voir dire” (fancy legal name for jury selection) has given me an opportunity to go back through my notebook and re-examine all that happened this week. Vice President Cheney’s testimony and role in the CIA leak investigation is going to be far more intriguing than previously thought. There were two clues yesterday. (1) A Libby lawyer, for the second time in this process, asked a potential juror how they will view Vice President Cheney if his testimony is “contradicted” by another witness. (2) Late yesterday, Patrick Fitzgerald asked a juror who expressed admiration for the office of the vice president whether that potential juror would have any problems if counsel (Fitzgerald) conducted an aggressive cross examination of the vice president?
CONTINUED >>
This is day #3 in jury selection for the Scooter Libby trial. And today’s session began with Scooter Libby’s top lawyer SUGGESTING that Vice President Cheney’s expected testimony in this case MAY be contradicted by another witness. Despite all of the pre-trial filings, documents, and evidence released...this is the first time such a suggestion has been made in the CIA leak case.
CONTINUED >>
This is day #2 of jury selection, and it has become another bad day for a few of America’s elite universities. This morning, a young woman with degrees from Swarthmore and Emory University said she had no opinion about the Bush Administration’s case for war with Iraq. She also said she never watches the news or reads the paper, and said she would consider Vice President Cheney “a perfect stranger.” Yesterday, a potential juror with two degrees from Northwestern, including one in journalism, said she thought she knew something about the CIA leak case but “couldn’t recall anything.” When asked about the types of stories she covered as a graduate school journalist, that woman repeatedly said, “I don’t really remember...just stuff at the court, stuff at the city council.” Asked what else? She said, “Other stuff.” Asked to be more specific, she said “I don’t remember. It was a bunch of stuff.” This exchange prompted endless teasing of one of my journalism colleagues covering the trial who is a Northwestern graduate. “Stuff happens,” noted one of the other reporters here.
CONTINUED >>
