Hardblogger : David Shuster

Both Coulter and Edwards win by fighting

Sam Go — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 03:41:00 GMT

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."
On Monday, Coulter stepped up the attacks on Edwards again while plugging her latest book. On GMA this week: "I wouldn’t insult gays by comparing them to John Edwards. Now, that would be mean. But about the same time, you know, Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. "So I’ve learned my lesson. If I’m gonna say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."
The Edwards campaign immediately cashed in on the controversy by featuring it on their Web site in a fundraising appeal.

While the campaign was raising money, Elizabeth Edwards decided to confront Coulter herself on Tuesday's "Hardball." Every major blog and Web site that covers politics and covers the news has featured the video of that phone call—from The Drudge Report, Huffingtonpost, TV Newser. And the downloads keep coming on YouTube.

So how did the Ann Coulter-Elizabeth Edwards confrontation happen?

Before Tuesday’s Hardball appearance, MSNBC and MSNBC.com promoted that viewer comments and questions would be part of the program.

According to Hardball executive producer Tammy Haddad, “The Edwards campaign called to ask if it was possible that Elizabeth could talk to Ann Coulter live on the air. And we told them yes.”

In turn, Haddad had a conversation with Coulter. “I talked to Ann before the show and told her we had gotten a call from the Edwards campaign and that Elizabeth might call in and she was fine with it,” she says.

In the third block of the show, Elizabeth Edwards was patched in. This morning, the confrontation got more air time on the Today Show. On the show, Chris weighed in, saying “In human terms, Elizabeth Edwards has won this round.”

A history of provoking... or is it marketing?
Coulter has a lengthy record of provoking critics and making new enemies—all of which fuels her notoriety and book sales.

Shortly after 9/11, she referred to the Muslim world and said, “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.”

While covering the 2004 Democratic convention for USA Today, Coulter began one article with “here at the spawn of satan convention in Boston...”

Last year, Coulter attacked the 9/11 widows known as the Jersey girls, saying “These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them.... I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much.”

A boost to the Edwards campaign as well
But the attention is just what the Edwards campaign was hoping for, according to MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan. “You want to get into fights with people who are terribly unpopular with the constituency you are after," says Buchanan. "People will say, ‘Good, the Edwards are going after Ann Coulter, she really deserves it, good for them. They are standing up to the beast,’ as it were.”

The Edwards campaign is raising more money off of Coulter. Today, the campaign added another fundraising appeal on their Web site featuring clips from Coulter’s appearance on Hardball.

Coulter, though, is also benefiting from the confrontation. Over the last day, sales of her latest book are way up.

Michael Moore defends 'Sicko'

Hardball — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 22:12:00 GMT

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 “Sicko." (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.”

In part of his film, Moore demonstrates how part of the system is broken through his own visit to Cuba. In Moore’s unique style, he brought along rescue workers from 9-11 who are now suffering from health problems. Together, Moore and his entourage tried to walk into the Guantanamo Bay detainee facility. They were turned away, of course. But not before Moore was able to make a point about the health care offered to suspected terrorists that is not available to many Americans. Some conservatives have suggested that Moore should be “jailed” for his trip to Cuba. When we asked Moore about that he said, “the Bush administration provides free dental, free eye care, and free medical for all of the people who were accused of being involved in plotting 9-11. The people who ran down to ground zero to save lives don’t have health care. I think that is a travesty.”

A few weeks ago, potential GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson criticized Moore for going to Cuba. Moore replied that Thompson was helping Cuba even more by “smoking Cuban cigars.” Thompson then filmed a you tube video with a cigar in hand and suggested that Moore belonged in a “mental institution” just like one that a Cuban film maker was thrown in by dictator Fidel Castro. We asked Moore about Thompson’s latest shot... and Moore fired back. Moore said, “he (Thompson) is one of my favorite TV actors and I can’t wait to see the next video.”

Michael Moore—whether you love him or hate him, he is always interesting. And if nothing else, his new film “Sicko” will be incredibly provocative. The movie opens across the country next week. Tonight, he has much of official Washington showing up for a special screening at our most famous D.C. theatre—the Uptown. Moore has invited health care lobbyists to attend... think any will show?

Exclusive: Juror hopes Libby will be pardoned

Hardball — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 22:29:00 GMT

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.”

“Whether or not he should get one, I don’t know that I have a valid opinion,” Redington said. “But I would like him to get one.” Chris Matthews then asked Redington, “Do you think he should get one now, when it might cause the president a little bit of trouble but it will keep him out of federal prison or should he get one later at the end of the term when the president can do it at midnight on Christmas even when nobody is watching? What would be more appropriate?” Redington responded, “Well, it would certainly be more interesting if he got one now. It would be more fun to follow.”

Redington repeatedly said she was “concerned” that prosecutors did not charge anybody with the act of leaking Valerie Wilson’s identity, even Scooter Libby. (Libby was charged with lying and obstructing the criminal investigation.) Redington said she was disappointed that Ari Fleischer, Karl Rove and others were involved in leaking Wilson’s identity but that Libby was the only one who faced the prospect of prison time.

Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spoke about this issue after the verdict was returned. Fitzgerald said, to take a case where a high-level official is telling a story that the basis of his information wasn’t from government officials but came from a reporter, the reporter had told us that was not true, other officials had told us the information came from them, we could not walk away from that.” Fitzgerald added, “None of us on the team can walk away from what we knew in December 2003 and walk away from that. And so we’ve brought charges, we went to trial and we’ve proved the case. So we think the facts justify themselves.”

Redington, who wept from the jury box as the verdict was announced by her panel, said she couldn’t bear to look at Scooter Libby or his wife. She said that she was “overcome with emotion.”

Redington revealed that all of the 12 jurors who went into jury deliberations took extensive notes during the trial. Redington said that during deliberations, when one juror couldn’t recall specifics about testimony or evidence from the case, “somebody else” always managed to have the answer in their own notes. Redington said that when the jury first entered into deliberations, they asked one another who did not want to serve as foreperson. Several jurors raised their hands. Then, after the other jurors said they “would serve as foreperson,” the jurors took a secret ballot and a staffer at a local law firm was elected foreperson. Redington said the panel spent the next seven days reviewing the evidence, evaluating the credibility of every witness, putting together timelines, and discussing the overall case. Redington said it was only on day eight when the jury took their first votes on the five counts against Libby. The verdicts were completed two days later when the jury reached a guilty verdict on four counts and a not guilty verdict on one count.

Libby trial: Jurors taking note of Fleischer testimony

Hardball — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:42:00 GMT

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

Libby trial: Prosecution introduces evidence

Hardball — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 23:53:00 GMT

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.”

On the June 14, 2003, table of contents for Schmall’s briefing for Libby, Schmall wrote “told this was a VP question.” Below that notation were the names “Joe Wilson” and “Valerie Wilson.” Schmall testified these names were raised by Libby.

In a different briefing on July 14 2003, Schmall testified he briefed both LIBBY AND VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY. On this document, Schmall wrote the words, “Did you read the Novak article. Not your problem.” Schmall could not testify whether this reflected a comment by the Vice President or by Scooter Libby.

Schmall testified that he told Cheney and Libby he HAD NOT READ the Novak article. Later, Schmall said he remembered following up with Libby and Cheney in a subsequent conversation, telling them he had finally read the Novak article, and pointed out to Cheney and Libby the disclosure of Plame’s identity could severely harm CIA sources around the world and lead to the deaths of CIA contacts.

On cross examination, Schmall testified that he could not recall specific items that he briefed Mr. Libby about on June 13, 2003.

The testimony, while crucial to the prosecution case, also offered the jury and courtroom observers a rare look at how the CIA briefings are conducted each morning for the VP and his chief of staff, how many hours are spent preparing the briefing by the CIA official (4 hours) and how issues are noted by the briefer for follow up by the CIA.

There was a funny moment as Schmall testified about his June 14, 2003 briefing of Libby. Schmall had written two other items (other than the Joe/Valerie Wilson.) The 2nd notation was a complaint that Libby had about CIA analysts feeling pressured by the OVP. The first item was a notation about Tom Cruise and Penolope Cruz. Schmall testified that Libby and he (Schmall) were both excited as Libby spoke of a recent visit to Libby’s office by the actor Tom Cruise. Schmall testified that Tom and Penelope had spoken with Libby about their concern for how Germany treats scientologists. This prompted questions among yours truly and colleagues covering this trial about whether the Cruise/Libby meeting might hurt Scooter. After all, as one of my esteemed colleagues noted, Scooter may have been “busy” with issues of national security that precluded him from remembering anything about Joe Wilson. But, Scooter certainly had enough time to talk with Tom Cruise... and felt compelled to bring this to the attention of Libby’s CIA briefer.

Libby trial: The jury is in

Hardball — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 23:49:00 GMT

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:

Women:

Middle age consumer protection lawyer for the Federal Trade Commission. She said she doesn’t follow the news or have any info on the CIA leak case.
Young woman who attended Emory and Swarthmore and now works at the Dept. of Health and Human Services. She said she “never reads the paper or listens to the news on TV.” She said she considered Vice President Cheney a “perfect stranger.” But she also added that from what little she does know, “I’m not particularly impressed with his manner of being.”
A hotel sales manager who said Vice President Cheney seemed like a “slightly cold man.” She didn’t know much about the case except for the name of the defendant. She testified, “You don’t forget a name like Scooter.” This woman also said she reads a lot of “celebrity magazines” but “no news magazines.” She added, “I am the master of all things pop culture, but don’t know anything about current events.”
An elderly woman who has suffered from Parkinson’s and volunteers for a non profit that helps fellow seniors.
An African American woman who works at a non profit but used to work at the Pentagon for the Navy and Air Force.
A travel agent, originally from California, who has had “back problems” in recent years and testified she remembered “something about the CIA leak case” when she was in the hospital. But she said she remembers very few details because she was “on morphine at the time.” She said she doesn’t read the paper very much and hardly ever watches TV news. She does watch “Judge Judy.”
A young woman who works as a controller for a Washington, D.C. law firm. However, she also doesn’t read the news.
An African American woman who used to work as a postal worker. Her son pled guilty to a criminal charge in Judge Walton’s courtroom a few years ago. Asked if she had any bad feelings about the process, she replied, “No, it was my son’s fault.” Asked if she ever watches Meet the Press or any other television on Sunday morning, the woman said, “No, I’m in church on Sundays.”
An elderly woman who writes full time about “art.” She worked for many years as an “art curator.”

Men:

A former reporter for the Washington Post who worked for Bob Woodward in the mid 1980’s. Until six months ago, he shared an alley with Tim Russert, another witness in the case. He is also friends with Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus, who wrote an article that may be introduced as evidence in the case. The former reporter said his approach to issues of “credibility” is that “you don’t take anybody’s word for anything until you get the facts.” The man was an articulate and fairly colorful figure... He was asked if he had ever been arrested and replied, “In 1970 or 1971 during a May Day (peace) parade.” Asked if he had any bad feelings about that episode, he replied, “Well, the guy next to me took my food.” The man talked repeatedly about his career as a journalist and his desire to “get things right” and seek out “the truth.”
A retired math teach from North Carolina who suffered in recent years from Rocky Mountain spotted fever. He said he recognized Patrick Fitzgerald “from the news” but didn’t remember very many details about the charges against Scooter Libby. Asked about Vice President Cheney and the man replied, “I’m not sure I would like to out bird hunting with him later.”
An older man who works as a Web architect for a federal contractor at the General Service Administration. His wife works as a defense lawyer. He remembered the basics of the CIA leak case and said he remembered “Mr. Wilson had some comments that were unflattering (about the administration). He seemed really upset.” He expressed great respect for the justice system and said the trial “is a very important undertaking. Whatever I do must be as unbiased as possible.”

Libby jury selection: On to the second round

Hardball — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 16:42:00 GMT

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.

Memorable moments from this week's Libby jury selection

Hardball — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 16:15:00 GMT

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?

Heading into the weekend, there are 30 jurors who have made it to the 2nd round. The court needs 6 more to have enough to withstand the prosecution and defense strikes and still have a pool of 12 jurors and 4 alternates.

Among those under consideration in round two, many of them delivered some memorable lines and quotes during their time on the witness stand. A retired math teacher originally from North Carolina was asked about Vice President Cheney and said, “I’m not sure I would like to go out bird hunting with him.” A statistician called Cheney “careless about the Iraq war” and then elaborated by saying,” I think he (Cheney) was taking a big stretch to make some of the statements he made about the war. That’s why I said it was careless.” A Lockheed-Martin executive is in the jury pool and noted that she is “currently chasing about a BILLION dollars in potential business.” This was followed by the revelation that people who “miss work” are paid by the court $35 per day. A woman whose son was arrested on drug charges and served time in prison noted that her son was sentenced by Judge Walton himself. The judge asked if the woman had any bad feelings about him or the court. The woman replied, “Not at all, it was my son’s fault.”

One woman who is no longer in the jury pool said she knew about the CIA leak case and revealed she had firm beliefs about the vice president. Asked what those beliefs are, she said, “I believe that the vice president had the defendant leak Ms. Plame’s name.” Asked by the judge if the woman has a firm view about Mr. Libby...she blurted out, “guilty.” The judge furrowed his brow and said, “Okay ma’am, you are dismissed.”

Libby jury selection: Will a witness contradict Cheney's testimony?

Hardball — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 21:40:00 GMT

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.

During the questioning of a potential juror who called the Iraq war “a tremendous mistake” and said she felt “betrayed by the war,” Libby’s attorney questioned the woman about her views of Vice President Cheney. A juror can not serve on the panel if his/her views on the war or views of any administration official would inhibit the juror’s ability to examined evidence, testimony, and a verdict “fairly.” Regarding the vice president, the woman said, “I think he’s been instrumental in enacting some policies that have damaged our country.” She then said she could still be “fair” in this case and listen only to the evidence presented in court. Libby lawyer Ted Wells then said, “Vice President Cheney will be a witness in this case. If his testimony is contradicted by another witness, who you don’t know or have no feelings about, would your feelings about the vice president make it difficult for you to fairly evaluate the credibility of the vice president?”

What was Libby’s lawyer referring to? Is there a witness who will undermine the Vice President? Is Wells expecting a battle royal between prosecutor Fitzgerald and Vice President Cheney when Cheney is cross examined and suggests he may not “remember” issues related to the Wilsons and the leak of Valerie Wilson’s identity?

Lawyers in this case are under a court order from the judge not to talk with reporters or answer reporter questions. So, we may not know, until Cheney testifies, whether Libby’s lawyer was raising a HYPOTHETICAL with a possible juror to evaluate whether that juror can be fair... or whether there will be a witness in this case who will contradict the vice president’s expected testimony.

Libby jury selection: Bad day for elite schools, journalist reaches 2nd round

Hardball — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:48:00 GMT

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.

Judge Walton had a funny instruction this morning to the Swarthmore/Emory graduate who has made it into the next round. “Continue to not listen to the news or read the paper,” said Judge Walton. The next prospective juror, a database administration, answered affirmatively to the question of whether he “knew” any of the attorneys in the case. He said he “knew” prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald from a news conference Fitzgerald held 15 months ago on the day Scooter Libby was indicted. The prospective juror said he didn’t mean to imply he “knew Fitzgerald personally.” Upon further questions by the judge, this man said his wife works in the criminal division at the justice department and added that a friend of theirs is a federal prosecutor in D.C. During questioning by the defense, Libby’s attorney asked the man, “Do you know any defense lawyers?” The man paused and said, “Uuhhhh, no.” However, he said he would be able to decide the Libby case fairly and based solely on the evidence presented in court. So, he made it to the next round as well.

Just a few moments ago, the 12th prospective juror to be questioned on the witness stand noted that she had read a Washington Post article on Monday previewing the Libby trial after the woman learned she would be a possible juror in the case. Asked by the judge, “You read the specific article?” The 60ish woman said, “Absolutely.” When the judge asked the woman if she had “any opinions” about the Bush administration that might affect her ability to focus solely on the evidence and statements made in court, the woman replied: “I certainly have an opinion that I can’t believe any statement by the Bush administration.” The judge immediately asked attorneys to approach the bench, flipped on an audio switch so nobody, including the prospective juror, could hear the conversation above the electronic static. About ten seconds later, the judge flipped his microphone on and said to the woman, “I appreciate your candor, but we will have to excuse you.”

Going into the questioning of the 13th prospective juror in this process, eight people had been approved for the next round... four had been “excused.” Once the judge gets to 36 for the next round, there will be enough to survive the number of strikes allowed by the defense and prosecution and still have 12 jurors and 4 alternates left for the trial.

The 13th prospective juror to be questioned has emerged as the most well connected to top figures in this case. For three years in the 1980’s, this man said he worked as a reporter at the Washington Post for Bob Woodward. Until six months ago, the man was a neighbor of Tim Russert and “shared an alley” with the host of Meet the Press. The man went to grade school with Maureen Dowd. He is “friendly” with Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus, who wrote about the administration’s false case for war in the spring of 2003. Attorneys spent more than a half hour questioning this man about whether he could put these connections aside and judge the case “fairly” and solely based on evidence presented at trial. He stated repeatedly that as a journalist by training, he is all about “getting things right” and being “accurate” in evaluating witnesses. He noted that he is a referee at his son’s basketball games and calls the games down the middle without bias or preference to either side. Asked repeatedly about Woodward, the man said “he’s written books about Iraq, one contradicted the other. Obviously he got some things wrong.” The man added, “When I worked for Woodward, he constantly drilled in our heads not believe anything anybody says until you get the facts.” Asked about knowing Tim Russert, the man said “Tim Russert is not going to tell lies intentionally. But I believe that about most people.” The man prompted widespread laughter when he was asked if he had ever been arrested. The man said he had been arrested in 1971 at a May Day parade/protest. He said he had “no bad feelings” about how he was treated in that episode, “except when the guy next to me took my food.” Towards the end of his questioning, the man was asked about what he has been doing in recent years since working as a reporter. He casually noted he wrote a novel about “spying.” Libby’s lawyer said, “Tell me about the spying book.” The man described the “good, the bad, and the ugly” of CIA spying in Guatemala. It quickly became clear that he had no “strong opinions” one way or the other about the CIA. At the end of the lengthy questioning, the judge had the man step away from the bench while the lawyers briefly discussed whether they would “move for cause” to have him excused. Neither side made the request. So the journalist made it to the second round.

Both the prosecution and defense teams have body language experts who are analyzing the way prospective jurors answer questions in court. These experts will help each side “rank” the jurors who made it into the second round in terms of favorable/unfavorable. Then, the defense and prosecution will be able to get rid of jurors on their “unfavorable” list through what are known as “preemptory challenges.” I won’t bore you with details about what “qualifies” as a “peremptory” challenge. But, the defense gets 12 peremptory strikes and the prosecution has eight.