Politics TV brings you the final v-log from Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake and Marcy Wheeler (Empty Wheel) of the Next Hurrah.

I'm going to miss them both. They provided invaluable coverage of this trial. At the end, they talk about the impact of bloggers on the trial and credit all of us who blogged from the courthouse.

Now that Scooter Libby has been convicted of four of five counts, what sentence is he likely to receive?

First off, for non-lawyers, the 25 years you hear about are not what he will get. They are the maximum sentence authorized by statute. The maximum sentence for obstruction is 10 years; false statements and perjury, 5 years.

In reality, sentences are based on the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Until a few years ago when the Supreme Court decided Booker v. United States (argued in the Supreme Court by TalkLeft blogger TChris), the guidelines were mandatory. Now, they are given serious consideration or even great weight, but they are not binding and the Court must consider the factors in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). That could result in a lower sentence for Libby -- or not.

On to the Guidelines, below the fold:

Courtesy of Connecticut Blog (also My Left Nutmeg): Part 1 of Scooter Libby juror Denis Collins' interview after the verdict

Part 2 below the fold

I think a lot of the interest in the Libby trial has been the repercussions to Vice President Cheney if Libby was convicted.

During closing arguments, Fitzgerald said there was a cloud over the White House and the Vice President.

At the press conference today, Fitzgerald was very clear that he does not expect to bring additional charges in the case. They are all going back to their day jobs. The investigation is now inactive.

Joseph Wilson's statement, through his lawyers, is here.
He will be on MSNBC's Countdown and CNN's Larry King Live tonight.

Guilty on count 1 - Obstruction
Guilty on count 2 - False Statement, Russert/>
Not Guilty on count 3 - False Statement, Cooper
Guilty on Count 4 - Perjury
Guilty on Count 5 - Perjury

Update: The transcript of my Washington Post live-chat on the verdict is here. I've also done a bunch of radio interviews today. I'm about to start one with Michael Signorile on Sirius and at 6:30 ET with Air America (Rachel Maddow) and after that, KTSA in San Antonio with Jack Riccardi. (Thanks to CBS radio Los Angeles for having me on twice today and also Denver's Caplis and Silverman on KHOW radio.)

Update: Dennis Collins, juror. "I am not excited to be here," but because he was a reporter for years, he felt he should speak. Will talk about the evidence. The primary thing that convinced us on most counts was the alleged conversation with Russert. It was either false, or if it did happen, Mr. Libby saying he was surprised to hear about Mrs. Wilson didn't add up. We had lots of post-it notes, we took a week just to get these building blocks, and we came up with that Mr. Libby was told about Mrs. Wilson 9 times. Mr. Hannah's testimony was contradictory on Libby's memory. References Marc Grossman's testimony and Vice-President Cheney's notes.

Partial video of juror's news conference is here.

More below the fold:

Marcy at Firedoglake is back in court at the Libby Trial. These are the questions the jurors submitted yesterday afternoon:

Is the prosecution alleging that Mr. Libby did not make the statement to Cooper as presented to us in the Indictment OR is the allegation that Libby did know Mrs. Wilson worked for the CIA when he spoke to the FBI on 10/14/03 or 11/26/03?

Is the prosecution's allegation in Count 3 that Mr. Libby DID know that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for the CIA when he made statements to the FBI on 10/14/03 OR 11/26/03? (Page 74/75 …"that Mr. Libby did not know if this was true.")

In determining Count 3, are we allowed to consider Mr. Libby's grand jury testimony?

Both sides have agreed on how the judge should respond and the Judge has so advised the jury. The judge's written response is here.(pdf)

More....

Via Marcy at Firedoglake, there's another jury note, Wells looks happy, Fitzgerald does not. They are discussing how to answer and will reconvene at 4:30 ET. I'll stay online to update.

Update: DOJ spokesperson Randall Samborn says "The parties have been asked to meet in Court at 4:05 p.m. today Monday March 5 to review a note with questions that the Court has received from the jury."

So, there's more than one question.

More....

The Judge in the Scooter Libby trial today provided this written response (pdf)to the questions the jury asked Friday about reasonable doubt and Matthew Cooper and the obstruction of justice charge.

The first question read:

We would like clarification of the term "reasonable doubt." Specifically, is it necessary for the Government to present evidence that it is not humanly possible for someone not to recall an event in order to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Shorter version: Dear Jury, re-read the reasonable doubt instruction, and if you still have a problem, clarify what you mean by "humanly possible." On Matthew Cooper, you can consider all the evidence presented at trial, including all of Libby's grand jury testimony.

Marcy at Firedoglake ( here and here and most recently here)live-blogged the court hearing over how to respond to the jury.

Update: Text version of response below the fold:

I'm still considering the jury note today on reasonable doubt. (You can view it here.)

We would like clarification of the term "reasonable doubt." Specifically, is it necessary for the Government to present evidence that it is not humanly possible for someone not to recall an event in order to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Where would a juror get the idea that the Government had to produce evidence that it was not humanly possible for Libby to have forgotten about an event?

One place is from this section of Ted Wells' closing argument. (From the transcript -- no link, sorry, but it is official.)

The jury in the Scooter Libby trial sent two questions to the Judge today before leaving early for the weekend. You can view them here.

The one about reasonable doubt is the most interesting.

We would like clarification of the term "reasonable doubt." Specifically, is it necessary for the Government to present evidence that it is not humanly possible for someone not to recall an event in order to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The jury instruction on reasonable doubt is here.

Update: My thoughts below:

Bump and Update: Via DOJ spokesperson Randall Samborn:

The Libby jury delivered two notes containing questions when they were excused today. Both notes will be available on the public docket later today. Court will convene at 9 a.m. on Monday March 5 to address the notes.

Update: No verdict today.

*********

Libby Trial: Verdict Unlikely Today

A verdict is unlikely today in the Scooter Libby trial. The jurors' note (pdf) yesterday said they wanted to be excused at 2:00 pm to attend to "personal, professional and medical obligations," and the Judge granted it.

The judge thinks they will deliberate into next week. And yes, it appears they care about being dressed appropriately when the verdict is returned:

Update: Keep reading the tea leaves. No verdict today and the jury is leaving early tomorrow. Marcy at Firedoglake has the recap.

********

We're in day seven of the Scooter Libby jury deliberations. Jane and Marcy of Firedoglake are live-blogging any news.

Tidbit for today: The jurors asked for another large easel pad yesterday, signifying nothing. Maybe more important - the jurors are in jeans again.

I think the jurors will dress up on verdict day. I have no scientific or anecdotal evidence to back that up, only a memory that it happened in some other high-profile trial within the past few years. I can't even remember now which one.

Please use the comments to update with trial news as I'll be off-line for several hours (although checking in every ten minutes by Treo.) I'll have my laptop with me to get back online if there's a verdict. Feel free to e-mail me if you learn it before reading it here.