Comments on: The Libby Trial

By: Midas Oracle .ORG » Blog Archive » Scooter Libby Trial: InTrade Probabilities vs. Tom Maguire's Insights

Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:14:44 +0000

[...] At Chicago Boyz, you’ll see a debate (in the comments) on prediction markets vs. legal experts (in particular, Tom Maguire). [...]

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:45:58 +0000

-Jonathan 6:21 AM isn’t me. Contra his assertion, experience shows that money on the line does make it more likely that the market’s distillation of collective opinion is accurate, even if trading volume is low.

-I’m not trading this. Why? Because I’m less keen on political trading for myself than I am on political trading as a source of information. Because I don’t think I know enough to have an edge here. And because if I were in the market I would probably spend too much time following it, relative to the size of the bet that I would make.

By: Greg D

Greg D — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 06:35:39 +0000

So, have you bought some of that action? If not, why not?

By: A Second Hand Conjecture

A Second Hand Conjecture — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 22:05:48 +0000

Will We See the Efficient Market Hypothesis at Work?…

As the “Scooter” Libby trial draws to a close, speculation abounds as to the final outcome. According to Chicago Boyz (HT: Insty), the Intrade betting market sets the chances of Libby being convicted at around 70% for.
Despite wishful …

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 11:21:37 +0000

The futures market may have spoken but the (actual) volume was like a whisper. When fewer than 3000 contracts trade in any market, the demographics could be all blue, like blue skies and wishful thinking. Money on the line doesn’t make it real or even plausible.

By: Alain

Alain — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 08:38:22 +0000

You mean the same futures markets that were predicting that the GOP would keep control of the Senate?

By: Anna Jane

Anna Jane — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 08:07:30 +0000

Who the heck cares? Libby’s a nobody in a trial about nothing.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 06:52:38 +0000

The whole trial is a 3 ring circle
jerk, and only pushed to slam Bush.
The people energizing this hate the
president so much they are willing
to harm the country.
It is ludicrous LIbby is being tried on such a ridiculous charge.
The prosecutor knew from the git go who so-called outed Plame hiding this fact.
Why isn’t he being investigated?
I’d say the prosecutors had to scrape the bottom side of the barrel
looking for anything to attack Bush and his admin.

By: Christopher Fotos

Christopher Fotos — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 05:05:19 +0000

I wonder to what extent the traders get their information about the trial from Dreaded Mainstream Media. I mean heck, the jury could convict, I have no idea. But when you compare mainstream reporting with what’s come out on some Plamaniac sites like Tom Maguire’s Just One Minute, you get a radically different view of what’s come into evidence, the performance of various witnesses, etc. Do most traders know that a previously unknown FBI interview with Tim Russert credits him with saying,in contradiction to his testimony, that he couldn’t rule out that Valerie Plame came up in his conversation with Libby?–a conversation that is a keystone to Fitzgerald’s case? I could provide several more significant examples like that. My point isn’t to argue the case here–I just wonder about the source of their impressions.

By: flaiii

flaiii — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 04:08:18 +0000

I bought in at 60 — its now at 61.4 (not 70)…on intrade, a price of 60 is not overwhelmingly a ringer for victory.

By: capitano

capitano — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 03:54:27 +0000

If I were betting, I would bet that there is at least one principled juror who paid attention to the evidence and will follow the jury instruction on reasonable doubt. It only takes one.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 03:25:00 +0000

Maguire is the principal pundit I had in mind. He is generally insightful. The problem is that he is arguing from logic and evidence. The jury, as Jim Miller reminds us above, is drawn from a jurisdiction where people are disproportionately likely to be hostile to Administration officials, and isn’t necessarily using those criteria.

By: Pat

Pat — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 02:43:56 +0000

Forget Intrade. Read Tom Maguire at Just One Minute and pay attention to Clarice Feldman's posts and comments.

By: Lexington Green

Lexington Green — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 21:41:47 +0000

“…it cannot report deterioration or failure to improve if there has been progress.”

As long as ANY Americans are getting killed, that is all that will get reported.

By: Mrs. Davis

Mrs. Davis — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 21:21:57 +0000

Things are very SAD all around.

And they are far from over in Iraq. By summer it will look very different for a lot of reasons.

While the MSM can fail to report actual progress, it cannot report deterioration or failure to improve if there has been progress. The story will fade from view to be replaced by the next story if things improve. But if the war does improve, Presidential candidates who have stood by it will drive the point home and the press will not be able to bury their statements in debates and ads.

While Bush may not start any new initiatives, Emmanuel, Pelosi, Murtah can do very little direction setting short of defunding or revoking authorization for the war. It’s Bush’s war and nobody will touch it with a 10 foot pole till 2009. Pelosi doesn’t ahve the votes or the guts to defund the war.

By: Robert Schwartz

Robert Schwartz — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 20:57:44 +0000

An old trial lawyer once told me that there is a 10% chance that a jury will do anything. Nonetheless, a lot will depend on the summation and the charge. Further, there will be an appeal if there is a guilty verdict. I’ll bet there is enough on appeal to require a new trial, which is very unlikely.

I think, Wells’ decision to put neither Cheney nor Libby on the stand is a sign that he thinks the prosecution has not done much damage.

As far as a pardon goes, I would not expect one until December 2008.

By: Lexington Green

Lexington Green — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 19:42:07 +0000

What happens to Libby will have no impact on Bush. W’s approval ratings are in the basement, and his party and the country have moved on and are focused on the next election. The only way he will get any credibility to do anything is if there is visible progress in Iraq — which is impossible, since any progress will not be reported, even if it happened. Also, the Deomcrats know that the more that Iraq looks like Vietnam in its endgame, the better it is for them politically, so they are going to be pushing for an unambiguous defeat for the USA, while trying to keep that aspect quiet, though some of them are too stupid to keep it quiet, e.g. Murtha. The more Iraq is a catastrophe, the more it destroys the GOP’s long-held reputation of superior skill and reliability on security and defense issues. A helicopters-off-the-roof outcome in Iraq levels the domestic political playing field for the Donks, and they know it. Right now Bush is trying to push for some kind of respectable break-even appearance on our withdrawal, the Donks are trying to make sure it is a clear disaster. They recall 1974 and 1976, winning days for them in the wake of defeat in “Nixon’s War”.

Potentially, Mr. Bush could embark on other initiatives and get some traction that way. But he seems unable to do that, or unwilling. His focus has shrunk to Baghdad and Anbar province. His recent Clintonian deal with NK shows that he has no cards left to do anything.

(This piece, about the Russian diplomacy in the Middle East, show how the vultures are circling to take advantage of the new world order, post-Iraq, with the American hegemon in disarray and without friends in the region. Iraq is looking to be less like our second Vietnam and more like the Anglosphere’s second Singapore.)

So, basically, there will be no important initiatives coming out of the presidency until probably the Spring/Summer of 2009. We are on autopilot, with the nearest thing to direction coming from Speaker Pelosi and Rahm Emmanuel, et al. until then.

By: James A Pacella

James A Pacella — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 18:12:48 +0000

I dont understand the correlation between Bush’s cajones and those dates. (I can assume one for you, but I dont want to put words in your mouth)

By: Mrs. Davis

Mrs. Davis — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 18:09:09 +0000

If Bush asked Libby to lie to the DoJ and the Grand Jury he might get a pardon. But I doubt he did so I suspect Bush will look at it as a lawbreaker punished if he’s convicted.

As to Bush cajones, we’re still in Iraq and we will be on Jan 8, 2009.

By: Jim Miller

Jim Miller — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 17:56:41 +0000

Those who wonder how a jury could convict Libby should remember that it’s a Washington, DC jury. Juries there have done many amazing things, including deliberately acquitting murderers.

The Bush administration does not have strong support in the District, as I am sure all of you know. As I recall, when they were questioning prospective jurors, they were trying to exclude those who had full blown Bush Derangement Syndrome, but letting those with only mild versions through. And even so, they had trouble getting a complete jury.

And the dishonest converage of this controversy may well have made it impossible for Libby to get a fair trial in almost any metropolitan area.