Libby Found Guilty....

[Mr. Peabody]

Breaking News:
Scooter Libby found guilty in 4 of 5 counts CIA leak case (CNN) More to come


Libby found guilty in CIA leak case
By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN and MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writers 1 minute ago

WASHINGTON - Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was convicted Tuesday of obstruction, perjury and lying to the

[clambake]

A little dissapointed that Wells didn't shed some more crocodile tears.

Whether he shoots you in the face or fucks you in the ass, Cheney always gets his man.

[boutons_]

I expect the request for new trial and/or the appeal to take years.

Repugs will buy Libby a better lawyer, and more $$$ will beat the system. Libby to go free.

Now, will Fitz go after all the other WH staff, including dickhead, who were involved?

[Oh, Gee!!]

You're delusional if you think a) Libby will be convicted

yoni needs a new crystal ball

[Yonivore]

yoni needs a new crystal ball
I guess so.

However, Fitz has already stated that he does not expect to file any more charges and that the investigation is inactive. So, as far as this going any further, I'm afraid boutons, et. al. will be disappointed.

And, considering some of the statements being made by jurors, I don't think they had a clue as to what they were deciding:

From a Drudge Teaser: JUROR: WE HAD SYMPATHY FOR LIBBY, HE WAS THE FALL-GUY, WHERE WAS ROVE, WHERE WERE THE OTHERS...? SOME JURORS SAID 'THIS SUCKS, WE WISH WE WEREN'T JUDGING LIBBY'...

What the hell does that mean? Did they not understand they were trying Libby for perjury, obstruction, and lying to investigators and that there was no underlying crime for which "Rove" or "The Others" (whomever that might be) were even alleged to have committed? Apparently this one didn't get it.

I think it gets overturned on appeal based on faulty instructions to the jury or some such. But, again, my crystal ball is broken.

[Oh, Gee!!]

From a Drudge Teaser: JUROR: WE HAD SYMPATHY FOR LIBBY, HE WAS THE FALL-GUY, WHERE WAS ROVE, WHERE WERE THE OTHERS...? SOME JURORS SAID 'THIS SUCKS, WE WISH WE WEREN'T JUDGING LIBBY'...

jury is not supposed to let sympathy for the defendant play a role in deliberations. nothing inconsistent with convicting somebody you like (or feel sorry for) if the evidence supports a finding of guilt.

[clambake]

Just think. It won't even affect Cheney's sleep.

[Yonivore]

jury is not supposed to let sympathy for the defendant play a role in deliberations. nothing inconsistent with convicting somebody you like (or feel sorry for) if the evidence supports a finding of guilt.
I think the statements indicate the jurors making them believe they were doing more than trying Libby for perjury, obstruction, and lying to investigators. After all -- the crimes for which he was being tried were never presented as part of a larger conspiracy involving "Rove" or anyone else.

That's what I was talking about.

[Mr. Peabody]

jury is not supposed to let sympathy for the defendant play a role in deliberations. nothing inconsistent with convicting somebody you like (or feel sorry for) if the evidence supports a finding of guilt.

But isn't the fact that the jury felt sorry for Libby a basis for overturning the decision? I think it's known as the Pobre Cito Doctrine.

[Yonivore]

But isn't the fact that the jury felt sorry for Libby a basis for overturning the decision? I think it's known as the Pobre Cito Doctrine.
I think the expression of disappointment they couldn't be applying their findings on parties that weren't even implicated in the trial would be more of a problem.

It says they didn't understand the allegations, the law, or the instructions under which they were deliberating.

Either way, it is my opinion this verdict will be overturned on appeal.

[Mr. Peabody]

I think the expression of disappointment they couldn't be applying their findings on parties that weren't even implicated in the trial would be more of a problem.

It says they didn't understand the allegations, the law, or the instructions under which they were deliberating.

Either way, it is my opinion this verdict will be overturned on appeal.

Do you usually hope that convictions get overturned on appeal or do you merely make an exception for those in the Bush administration?

[Oh, Gee!!]

I think the statements indicate the jurors making them believe they were doing more than trying Libby for perjury, obstruction, and lying to investigators. After all -- the crimes for which he was being tried were never presented as part of a larger conspiracy involving "Rove" or anyone else.

That's what I was talking about.

I think the statements indicate that the jury believes Libby did not act alone. Again, it is not inconsistent to convict Libby for what he did while believing others were involved, as long as they convicted Libby based on what the evidence shows he did.

[Yonivore]

Do you usually hope that convictions get overturned on appeal or do you merely make an exception for those in the Bush administration?
I think you could see where the jury was headed when they came back with a question about whether the prosecution had to prove it was "not humanly possible for someone not to recall" in order to prove Libby guilty.

That's not the definition of "reasonable doubt," and the question suggests that a majority of the jury probably favored conviction, and were just trying to overcome the objections of a minority who were applying a strict standard of proof.

I think the whole affair is kind of a mystery.

President Bush ordered all executive branch personnel to cooperate with the Fitzgerald investigation. Other people, apparently including Dick Cheney, told investigators that they had discussed Wilson and Plame with Libby. It's hard to understand why Libby's testimony was so out of step with that of the other Executive Branch witnesses.

At the end of the day, imperfect memory seemed as good an explanation as any. Apparently, the jury didn't see it that way.

It's my opinion the questions to the judge and some of the comments already coming out, from the jurors, that they weren't clear on the alleged crime. It leaves it open for debate and certainly for a favorable appeal.

So, to which convictions are you referring that I have not made an exception? Let's see if there are differences in the two trials.

[Bob Lanier]

You must be mistaken.

http://aycu40.webshots.com/image/11999/2001883825464813443_rs.jpg

[Oh, Gee!!]

I think you could see where the jury was headed when they came back with a question about whether the prosecution had to prove it was "not humanly possible for someone not to recall" in order to prove Libby guilty.

That's not the definition of "reasonable doubt," and the question suggests that a majority of the jury probably favored conviction, and were just trying to overcome the objections of a minority who were applying a strict standard of proof.


Actually "not humanly possible" is an excessive and unreasonable burden for the prosecution to prove, so that would have actually favored Libby.

And I thought you said before that the jury sympathized with Libby. Now you have them prejudging him. Which is it?

[clambake]

Were any conditions required before cheney would agree to talk to investigators? hmmm.

[Yonivore]

I think the statements indicate that the jury believes Libby did not act alone.
Act alone in what? Perjury? That's a crime committed by a single person. There were no allegations of suborning perjury in others or conspiring to commit perjury.

Obstruction? Again, that charge was based on an act committed by Libby and not on some belief he conspired with other to obstruct. No one else is alleged to have obstructed the investigation or justice.

Lying to investigators? He is alleged to have committed that act alone. No conspiracy was raised and no one else is alleged to have lied to investigators.


Again, it is not inconsistent to convict Libby for what he did while believing others were involved, as long as they convicted Libby based on what the evidence shows he did.
Except for the fact that none of the charges had anything to do with a conspiracy.

It's as if they were saying we would have let Libby go if only we could have been rendering this verdict on Karl Rove or "the others" instead. Problem is, Karl Rove and "the others" aren't being tried nor are they alleged to have been involved in the crimes for which Libby was being tried.

[Oh, Gee!!]

You must be mistaken.

http://aycu40.webshots.com/image/11999/2001883825464813443_rs.jpg


I hope this a photoshop. I know FoxNews is slanted, but this would make them Yoni.

[Bob Lanier]

Well, it's true. Not the whole truth, but a certain fragment of it.

[Mr. Peabody]

Yoni, here's the whole quote --

"I will say there was a tremendous amount of sympathy for Mr. Libby on the jury. It was said a number of times, what are we doing with this guy here? Where's Rove? Where are these other guys? I'm not saying we didn't think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of. It seemed like he was, as Mr. Wells put it, he was the fall guy." _ Juror Denis Collins, a former Washington Post reporter.

[Oh, Gee!!]

That's a crime committed by a single person. There were no allegations of suborning perjury in others or conspiring to commit perjury.

Obstruction? Again, that charge was based on an act committed by Libby and not on some belief he conspired with other to obstruct. No one else is alleged to have obstructed the investigation or justice.

Lying to investigators? He is alleged to have committed that act alone. No conspiracy was raised and no one else is alleged to have lied to investigators.


So then what is the problem? Libby was convicted for what Libby did. You're the one who posted alleged comments from jurors saying Libby was the "fall guy."


Except for the fact that none of the charges had anything to do with a conspiracy.

that's good since he was neither charged with nor convicted of conspiracy.


It's as if they were saying we would have let Libby go if only we could have been rendering this verdict on Karl Rove or "the others" instead. Problem is, Karl Rove and "the others" aren't being tried nor are they alleged to have been involved in the crimes for which Libby was being tried.

If they convicted Libby for what the evidence shows Libby did, none of this matters.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Yoni, here the whole quote --

"I will say there was a tremendous amount of sympathy for Mr. Libby on the jury. It was said a number of times, what are we doing with this guy here? Where's Rove? Where are these other guys? I'm not saying we didn't think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of. It seemed like he was, as Mr. Wells put it, he was the fall guy." _ Juror Denis Collins, a former Washington Post reporter.

nice omission Yoni.

[Yonivore]

Yoni, here the whole quote --

"I will say there was a tremendous amount of sympathy for Mr. Libby on the jury. It was said a number of times, what are we doing with this guy here? Where's Rove? Where are these other guys? I'm not saying we didn't think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of. It seemed like he was, as Mr. Wells put it, he was the fall guy." _ Juror Denis Collins, a former Washington Post reporter.
And, again, the whole first part of that statement indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of what his particular jury was empaneled to do?

How was he a fall guy? He's the one alleged to have committed perjury and to have lied to investigators and to have obstructed the investigation. Not Rove or "the others." How does that make him a fall guy?

That juror apparently saw this as some referendum on the Bush administration and Karl Rove as opposed to a trial over very specific crimes committed by one person.

I think that's a problem. But, we'll see.

[Yonivore]

nice omission Yoni.
Actually, when I posted the portion of the quote in my post, there was no link to the article containing the entire post. As I stated at the time, it was a teaser on Drudge.

Still, it doesn't change my opinion of the juror that made the statement.

If he thought Libby was guilty of the charges for which he was tried, what the fuck does Karl Rove and "the others" have to do with it?

[Oh, Gee!!]

If he thought Libby was guilty of the charges for which he was tried

end of story.

[Yonivore]

end of story.
Really? So why did the juror even mention Rove and "the others?"

I doubt it will be the end of the story. But, whatever gets you through the night.

I think that juror made a good case for Libby's appeal.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Really? So why did the juror even mention Rove and "the others?"

I think that juror made a good case for Libby's appeal.

I think the defense might have suggested that Cheney and Rove were potential witnesses for the defense. Of course they never testified, so maybe the juror was wondering why they didn't get to hear from those witnesses. If the defense brought up those two names themselves, they can't cry about it when jurors ask about them later.

[ggoose25]

I think that juror made a good case for Libby's appeal.


I think you make a good case for abortion.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Really? So why did the juror even mention Rove and "the others?"

I doubt it will be the end of the story. But, whatever gets you through the night.

I think that juror made a good case for Libby's appeal.

The trial opened with a bang on January 23, as Libby's lawyer, the elegant Theodore Wells, declared that White House officials were making his client a scapegoat to protect presidential adviser Karl Rove. Washington salivated over the suggestion of a rift in the Bush Administration, but it came to naught. The defense never offered any testimony to back up the claim, and by the end of the trial, it was largely forgotten.

link: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1596626,00.html?cnn=yes

[Yonivore]

I think the defense might have suggested that Cheney and Rove were potential witnesses for the defense. Of course they never testified, so maybe the juror was wondering why they didn't get to hear from those witnesses. If the defense brought up those two names themselves, they can't cry about it when jurors ask about them later.
That's a big leap to believing Karl Rove and "the others" should have been on trial instead of Libby. Particularly when he was hearing evidence of Libby's perjury, Libby's obstruction, and Libby's lying to investigators.

I think it speaks to a unfair bias held by that juror. Or, at the very least, that he was allowing information, not in evidence, to inform his decision. Didn't they dismiss a juror for something like that?

[Oh, Gee!!]

So maybe the "Where's Rove?" and where "are the others?" questions were directed at defense counsel, and not the prosecution. If so, Libby's long-shot appeal became impossible.

[Yonivore]

The trial opened with a bang on January 23, as Libby's lawyer, the elegant Theodore Wells, declared that White House officials were making his client a scapegoat to protect presidential adviser Karl Rove. Washington salivated over the suggestion of a rift in the Bush Administration, but it came to naught. The defense never offered any testimony to back up the claim, and by the end of the trial, it was largely forgotten.

link: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1596626,00.html?cnn=yes
Again, a scapegoat for what? Exactly what did Karl Rove or "the others" do to put Libby in the position of being tried for perjury, obstruction, or lying to investigators?

And, if they did do something that resulted in Libby's prosecution, wouldn't that exculpate Libby?

[Oh, Gee!!]

That's a big leap to believing Karl Rove and "the others" should have been on trial instead of Libby. Particularly when he was hearing evidence of Libby's perjury, Libby's obstruction, and Libby's lying to investigators.

I think it's a big leap for you to conclude that the jurors question meant Karl Rove should have been on trial instead of Libby. The defense promised to show that Libby was Rove's scapegoat, but failed to deliver. Maybe the juror's question as to Rove's whereabouts had to do with the fact that the defense listed Rove as a potential witness and promised to prove Rove was the one who was actually guilty. The defense can not appeal from their own defense. They put the idea of Rove into the minds of the jurors.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Again, a scapegoat for what? Exactly what did Karl Rove or "the others" do to put Libby in the position of being tried for perjury, obstruction, or lying to investigators?

And, if they did do something that resulted in Libby's prosecution, wouldn't that exculpate Libby?


That was the defense you idiot. The defense put the idea of being a scapegoat for Karl Rove in the jurors' minds. You can't appeal a verdict because you failed to prove your defense.

[Mr. Peabody]

That was the defense you idiot. The defense put the idea of being a scapegoat for Karl Rove in the jurors' minds. You can't appeal a verdict because you failed to prove your defense.

:lol

[Yonivore]

I think it's a big leap for you to conclude that the jurors question meant Karl Rove should have been on trial instead of Libby.
Really? The "...what is Libby doing here..." and "...where's Rove..." portions of the statement don't lead you to that conclusion?


The defense promised to show that Libby was Rove's scapegoat, but failed to deliver. Maybe the juror's question as to Rove's whereabouts had to do with the fact that the defense listed Rove as a potential witness and promised to prove Rove was the one who was actually guilty. The defense can not appeal from their own defense. They put the idea of Rove into the minds of the jurors.
It still doesn't explain how the juror would state he believed Rove should be on trial.

[Oh, Gee!!]

It still doesn't explain how the juror would state he believed Rove should be on trial.

you're hopeless. Let me explain one last time. The idea that Karl Rove should be on trial came from Libby's own lawyer. Their defense to prosecution was that Karl Rove did it all, not Libby. They failed. The juror can ask about Rove, because Libby brought it up it first through his attorney.

[clambake]

It is laughable how repubs. are satisfied with libby taking the fall. That's some loyalty.

[Yonivore]

That was the defense you idiot. The defense put the idea of being a scapegoat for Karl Rove in the jurors' minds. You can't appeal a verdict because you failed to prove your defense.
So, if the juror believed that. For what was Libby being scapegoated? And, which of the four convictions was Libby the scapegoat on?

I guess you can't see how silly this sounds.

Libby is a scapegoat because the defense said so; we just don't know for what he was being scapegoated but, that doesn't matter, because we'd rather be trying Karl Rove anyway. And, incidentally, none of the crimes for which we're trying Libby could have been committed by anyone else -- the allegations are that Libby perjured himself, that Libby lied to investigators, and that Libby obstructed the investigation. It's not like Karl Rove could have committed the perjury, lies, or obstruction for which Libby was tried but, hell, it'd sure be nice if that were the case because, well, we feel sorry for Libby and would rather be throwing Karl Rove's ass in jail.

It's a stupid premise.

[Yonivore]

It is laughable how repubs. are satisfied with libby taking the fall. That's some loyalty.
Who's satisfied?

[Oh, Gee!!]

So, if the juror believed that. For what was Libby being scapegoated? And, which of the four convictions was Libby the scapegoat on?

I guess you can't see how silly this sounds.

Libby is a scapegoat because the defense said so; we just don't know for what he was being scapegoated but, that doesn't matter, because we'd rather be trying Karl Rove anyway. And, incidentally, none of the crimes for which we're trying Libby could have been committed by anyone else -- the allegations are that Libby perjured himself, that Libby lied to investigators, and that Libby obstructed the investigation. It's not like Karl Rove could have committed the perjury, lies, or obstruction for which Libby was tried but, hell, it'd sure be nice if that were the case because, well, we feel sorry for Libby and would rather be throwing Karl Rove's ass in jail.

It's a stupid premise.

Which is why the jury did not buy that defense, and found Libby guilty. I think you're finally catching on.

[clambake]

It's not silly. Libby didn't make the dope, but got caught during delivery.

[Crookshanks]

I think the jurors were confused. Their comments seem to suggest that they were really finding Libby guilty of "outing" Valerie Plame - that's why they wanted to know where Rove and "the others" were. This whole investigation and trial was one huge fiasco intended to bring down the Bush Administration.

Now, if this doesn't get overturned on appeal, then let's hope the President does the right thing and pardons Libby.

[Mr. Peabody]

So, if the juror believed that. For what was Libby being scapegoated? And, which of the four convictions was Libby the scapegoat on?

I guess you can't see how silly this sounds.

Libby is a scapegoat because the defense said so; we just don't know for what he was being scapegoated but, that doesn't matter, because we'd rather be trying Karl Rove anyway. And, incidentally, none of the crimes for which we're trying Libby could have been committed by anyone else -- the allegations are that Libby perjured himself, that Libby lied to investigators, and that Libby obstructed the investigation. It's not like Karl Rove could have committed the perjury, lies, or obstruction for which Libby was tried but, hell, it'd sure be nice if that were the case because, well, we feel sorry for Libby and would rather be throwing Karl Rove's ass in jail.

It's a stupid premise.

:bang

[Mr. Peabody]

I think the jurors were confused. Their comments seem to suggest that they were really finding Libby guilty of "outing" Valerie Plame - that's why they wanted to know where Rove and "the others" were. This whole investigation and trial was one huge fiasco intended to bring down the Bush Administration.

Now, if this doesn't get overturned on appeal, then let's hope the President does the right thing and pardons Libby.

:bang

[ggoose25]

This whole investigation and trial was one huge fiasco intended to bring down the Bush Administration.

Now, if this doesn't get overturned on appeal, then let's hope the President does the right thing and pardons Libby.

What??? The media, libs, decent Americans were hoping that it would expose something, but to Fitzgerald's credit he ran a clean defense that didnt overreach on nothing. He stuck to the facts that Libby lied about where he got the information on Valerie Plame. As mentioned above ad nauseum, the DEFENSE brought up the link between Rove et. al and Libby, not the prosecution.

[Yonivore]

It's not silly. Libby didn't make the dope, but got caught during delivery.
What's the dope?

If the convictions are to be believed, he was caught committing perjury, obstructing an investigation, and lying to investigators.

And, if you look at the specific allegations, they have absolutely nothing to do with any underlying crime or conspiracy; they all center around when Libby said things to people that were already widely known by a bunch of other people.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I think the jurors were confused. Their comments seem to suggest that they were really finding Libby guilty of "outing" Valerie Plame - that's why they wanted to know where Rove and "the others" were. This whole investigation and trial was one huge fiasco intended to bring down the Bush Administration.

Now, if this doesn't get overturned on appeal, then let's hope the President does the right thing and pardons Libby.

Wells (defense for Libby) was playing catch-up by the time he opened the case for the defense, teasing the court with the possibility that Libby and even Vice President Dick Cheney would testify

Libby and then Cheney were expected to testify about just how crazy things were, but without notice, Wells informed the court that they would not take the stand. Instead, he offered John Hannah, Libby's former deputy, who described how terrible his boss's memory was. Then, after only three days, the defense rested its case.

(link: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1596626,00.html?cnn=yes)

I think the confusion may have come from Libby's attorney. I think the fact that Libby's attorney suggested that Cheney and Libby would would testify, led the jury to expect them to answer questions about the incident. The blame lies with Libby's attorney, and that isn't a reason to overturn the jury's conviction.

[Oh, Gee!!]

What's the dope?

If the convictions are to be believed, he was caught committing perjury, obstructing an investigation, and lying to investigators.

And, if you look at the specific allegations, they have absolutely nothing to do with any underlying crime or conspiracy; they all center around when Libby said things to people that were already widely known by a bunch of other people.


That probably would have been a better defense than the "scapegoat" defense.

[ggoose25]

so if libby is sentenced to jail time, physically goes to a prison, and then gets a pardon by bush, does he still have to finish his remaining time?

[Mr. Peabody]

so if libby is sentenced to jail time, physically goes to a prison, and then gets a pardon by bush, does he still have to finish his remaining time?

No. It's a pardon and he is free.

[Mr. Peabody]

And, if you look at the specific allegations, they have absolutely nothing to do with any underlying crime or conspiracy; they all center around when Libby said things to people that were already widely known by a bunch of other people.

Exactly, but Wells' defense was to make it seem as if Libby was the fall guy for a much larger cover-up. It obviously did not get his client the verdict he wanted.

[clambake]

Damn Crooks. You embrace a collusive administration that attempted to destroy 2 lives for simply telling the truth.

You should throw your religion out with the bath water.

[Yonivore]

Exactly, but Wells' defense was to make it seem as if Libby was the fall guy for a much larger cover-up. It obviously did not get his client the verdict he wanted.
That may be but, it doesn't explain the juror's whacky comment.

[Yonivore]

Damn Crooks. You embrace a collusive administration that attempted to destroy 2 lives for simply telling the truth.

You should throw your religion out with the bath water.
Joseph Wilson wouldn't know the truth if it bit him.

[clambake]

Looks like it bit scooter instead.

[Mr. Peabody]

That may be but, it doesn't explain the juror's whacky comment.

I think it does. If the defense was that Libby was having to take the fall for this cover-up and that the real culprits weren't even indicted, I could see how the jury may feel sympathy for Libby or question why others have not been indicted.

Of course, I don't really know what his argument was, so I am merely guessing just like everyone else here.

[Nbadan]

Juror Explains Libby Verdict: They Felt He Was 'Fall Guy'


NEW YORK - A spokesman for the jury that convicted "Scooter" Lewis of four counts today of perjury and obstruction of justice today in a federal courtroom told reporters immediately afterward that many felt sympathy for Libby and believed he was only the "fall guy."

Denis Collins said, "We asked ourselves, what is HE doing here? Where is Rove and all these other guys....He was the fall guy."

He said they believed that Vice President Cheney did "ask him to talk to reporters."

He said, "some jurors said at one point, 'We wish we weren't judging Libby...this sucks."

Asked about Vice President Cheney not testifying, he said, "Having Cheney testifying would have been interesting." And when the defense opened the trial by suggesting that Libby was scapegoated by the White House, "I thought we might get to see President Bush here."

Editor and Publisher (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003554231)

[ggoose25]

i feel sorry for libby too. its prolly hard being the only republican to be held accountable for their actions.

[FromWayDowntown]

I'm not sure that a juror's statement to the media is particularly fertile appellate ground. In a general sense, things that are extrinsic to trials -- like media interviews and reports -- aren't part of the record that can be considered on appeal. If Libby's lawyers wanted to try to bring this juror back to the courtroom and put him on the stand, I suppose they could. But, of course, that would give the juror the opportunity to explain in greater detail what he meant -- and likely vitiate whatever perceived harm might grow out of such a statement.

I, frankly, don't see that the statement is particularly egregious. If Libby's counsel suggested that the real culprits weren't in the courtroom and named them specifically to the jury in the hope that the jury would feel some sympathy for Libby, the comment suggests to me only that the strategy backfired, at least to some extent.

I didn't hear the evidence, so it's hard to say precisely what could have inspired such a comment; but I'm certain that any number of things that could have been said at trial -- none of which would have disputed Libby's culpability for the crime, and all of which might have attempted to argue that convicting him would be unfair (even if in keeping with the law) -- that might have provoked that thought.

[Yonivore]

I'm not sure that a juror's statement to the media is particularly fertile appellate ground. In a general sense, things that are extrinsic to trials -- like media interviews and reports -- aren't part of the record that can be considered on appeal. If Libby's lawyers wanted to try to bring this juror back to the courtroom and put him on the stand, I suppose they could. But, of course, that would give the juror the opportunity to explain in greater detail what he meant -- and likely vitiate whatever perceived harm might grow out of such a statement.

I, frankly, don't see that the statement is particularly egregious. If Libby's counsel suggested that the real culprits weren't in the courtroom and named them specifically to the jury in the hope that the jury would feel some sympathy for Libby, the comment suggests to me only that the strategy backfired, at least to some extent.

I didn't hear the evidence, so it's hard to say precisely what could have inspired such a comment; but I'm certain that any number of things that could have been said at trial -- none of which would have disputed Libby's culpability for the crime, and all of which might have attempted to argue that convicting him would be unfair (even if in keeping with the law) -- that might have provoked that thought.
I think that is a fair statement.

I would argue, however, that the juror's statement indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of what was being decided.

If, indeed, Libby's counsel successfully planted the seed that the "real culprit" wasn't in the courtroom and this is the genesis for the juror's comment; It would seem the juror believes crimes were being heard at the trial for which there were other possible defendents. And, frankly, the specific counts of the indictments spell out crimes that only Libby could have committed.

It's not like there was a murder and Libby was the suspect to whom most of the evidence pointed. The crimes for which he was indicted flowed directly from acts he is known to have committed, in that it was he that made the statements to investigators and under oath that were the basis of the indictments for perjury, obstruction, and lying to investigators.

That's my point. If the juror was able to be confused about who should have been on trial for the crimes over which he was being asked to decide guilt or innocence, what else was this juror (and the others) confused about.

Further, a mere three hours prior to the verdict, this jury -- after 10 days of deliberation -- was still asking fundamental question about their job.

As I heard earlier, this jury was not Mensa material and, I believe Libby's legal team would be strongly advised to pursue an appeal based on a fucked up jury.

[FromWayDowntown]

I think that is a fair statement.

I would argue, however, that the juror's statement indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of what was being decided.

If, indeed, Libby's counsel successfully planted the seed that the "real culprit" wasn't in the courtroom and this is the genesis for the juror's comment; It would seem the juror believes crimes were being heard at the trial for which there were other possible defendents. And, frankly, the specific counts of the indictments spell out crimes that only Libby could have committed.

It's not like there was a murder and Libby was the suspect to whom most of the evidence pointed. The crimes for which he was indicted flowed directly from acts he is known to have committed, in that it was he that made the statements to investigators and under oath that were the basis of the indictments for perjury, obstruction, and lying to investigators.

That's my point. If the juror was able to be confused about who should have been on trial for the crimes over which he was being asked to decide guilt or innocence, what else was this juror (and the others) confused about.

Further, a mere three hours prior to the verdict, this jury -- after 10 days of deliberation -- was still asking fundamental question about their job.

As I heard earlier, this jury was not Mensa material and, I believe Libby's legal team would be strongly advised to pursue an appeal based on a fucked up jury.

But the biggest problem with your argument is that it would seem that the confusion was created by Libby's lawyers and not the Government -- again, without the benefit of having heard the evidence.

Libby can't really argue on appeal that his conviction should be reversed because his lawyer screwed up and confused the jury. He wouldn't have a non-frivolous argument for ineffective assistance of counsel (because, among other things, he presumably chose his own counsel). Otherwise, a reversal depends on something that the government did to infringe upon his rights to an extent that he suffered harm from it. If the reports are true, it would seem that Libby's lawyers were the ones who opened the door to what you perceive as confusion (or a jumping off point for lambasting the jurors) there would be no reversible harm (I think) in the government exploiting that confusion.

Nobody is entitled to a jury of 12 wisened bishops to decide his case. Libby had the opportunity to choose jurors just as the government did; unless there was some interference by the Court in the manner in which Libby's choices were made, there's simply no error there.

And jury questions to the court aren't likely to beget reversal either. The jury's questions were within the realm of reasonable inquiry in the case -- it would seem. A question asking to clarify the beyond a reasonable doubt standard isn't unusual, I would think. If there was a question about crimes Libby was alleged to have committed, the question on appeal isn't whether the jury understood the claims asserted by the government; it's whether there is evidence to support the convictions that the jury returned. And in criminal cases, the standards for sustaining convictions based solely on the sufficiency of the evidence are heavily in favor of the government.

Again, Libby wasn't entitled to a perfect trial or a perfect jury. Nothing that seems to have come out would suggest that he was denied a fair trial -- if there's evidence to support the convictions, there's virtually nothing that the juror's statements can do to change Libby's chances on appeal.

[Yonivore]

That probably would have been a better defense than the "scapegoat" defense.
Personally, I think he should have used the Hillary Clinton defense of "I do no recall."

I find it hard to believe Libby would intentionally lie about a matter that had already been resolved. Well before Libby ever made any statements, Fitzfong already knew it was Richard Armitage that had given Plame's name to Novak.

In addition, it's never been concluded that any crime was committed in doing so.

That should have ended the investigation right there. But, he decided to supress that information and go headhunting.

I believe Libby was answering questions to the best of his ability and as honestly as he could.

That's why I think a faulty memory is more plausible than intentional lying. Seriously, why would he lie?

[FromWayDowntown]

If the evidence shows that it was only faulty memory, he'll get his conviction reversed. If the evidence supports an inference that he was intentionally lying, however, that conviction will stand, I think -- regardless of whether he had any reason to lie or not.

If the evidence establishes that he was intentionally lying, it establishes that he committed a crime as well. That's enough to uphold the conviction.

I have no idea what the evidence establishes, and I seriously doubt that anyone who posts here does know the answer to that question.

[boutons_]

"why would he lie?"

politics is built on lies, everything that has come of of the WH about Iraq has been lies or "faulty". It was clear that dickhead gave orders to libby to go after Wilson and Plame, something libby and others certainly didn't want to be known. plenty of reason to lie. dickhead is insanely fond of secrecy and secret govt, so he's a reflexive liar.

[Yonivore]

If the evidence shows that it was only faulty memory, he'll get his conviction reversed. If the evidence supports an inference that he was intentionally lying, however, that conviction will stand, I think -- regardless of whether he had any reason to lie or not.

If the evidence establishes that he was intentionally lying, it establishes that he committed a crime as well. That's enough to uphold the conviction.

I have no idea what the evidence establishes, and I seriously doubt that anyone who posts here does know the answer to that question.
Can't argue with that logic.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol Just because the jury thought another crime may have been committed by someone else doesn't mean Libby was innocent of the crimes with which he was charged.

[ChumpDumper]

Nah, the war in Iraq is a deadly serious, tragic mistake.

[clambake]

That's right. The jury just surmised through evidence that others had committed crimes. They fell bad for the sacrificial sheep.

[JoeChalupa]

Libby is just a fall guy.

[JoeChalupa]

I smell a pardon.

[boutons_]

.... and a Medal of Freedom.

you're doing a heckuva job, scootie

[xrayzebra]

"why would he lie?"

politics is built on lies, everything that has come of of the WH about Iraq has been lies or "faulty". It was clear that dickhead gave orders to libby to go after Wilson and Plame, something libby and others certainly didn't want to be known. plenty of reason to lie. dickhead is insanely fond of secrecy and secret govt, so he's a reflexive liar.

boutons, why shouldn't the WH go after Plame and Joe
Wilson. They were playing the game, they just didn't like
the rules when someone went after them.

The man who "outed" Ms. Plame, has yet to be charged.
Because no crime was committed.

Politics is a fast and furious game, you cant stand the
heat get out of the kitchen. Obviously, Plame and
Wilson didn't like it when the "whole" truth came out.
Like no written report and she recommended her hubby
to have a vacation at government expense. Oh, and
don't forget. Wilson had two versions of his "report".
None on paper, isn't that nice. :reading

[xrayzebra]

I smell a pardon.

I hope so.

[ggoose25]

i hope Bush doesn't pardon Libby till his last day in office so his ass can get pounded in a jail cell for at least a few months

[xrayzebra]

i hope Bush doesn't pardon Libby till his last day in office so his ass can get pounded in a jail cell for at least a few months

It will be some time before he seems the inside of a
cell. And if he ever does time it will be at a federal
"no bars" resort for white crime criminals.

[PixelPusher]

It will be some time before he seems the inside of a
cell. And if he ever does time it will be at a federal
"no bars" resort for white crime criminals.
:lol



(I think you meant "white collar criminals")

[clambake]

As opposed to Black crime criminals, huh xray? Is your hood "one size fits all or custom"?

[xrayzebra]

As opposed to Black crime criminals, huh xray? Is your hood "one size fits all or custom"?

And you point being???

[clambake]

Just pointing out your color categories and attraction to Rush.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Prosecutors played a tape of Libby testifying to a grand jury that Cheney had asked Bush to selectively declassify an intelligence report so Libby could leak it to sympathetic reporters. Cheney's handwritten scribbles were introduced into evidence at the trial, including one that hinted Cheney believed his own staffer, Libby, was being sacrificed.


No, Dick would never selectively leak information.... no he was completely honest.. I just wonder why he never advocated leaking intel that contradicted his case for war..

[xrayzebra]

Just pointing out your color categories and attraction to Rush.

Seems as though you have the color problem, I have none.
I misspoke in the sense I was talking about white collar criminals. But naturally, being a liberal, you assume the worst case scenario.

And yeah, I like Rush, so what? You like dimm-o-craps,
want to make an issue out of that? Who is the bigger liar?

[clambake]

I doubt Rush is even capable of knowing when he lies, due to his massive drug abuse and hate for african-americans.

[ChumpDumper]

He enjoys the occasional sex junket to third world countries.

[clambake]

Dude knows how to party , huh?

[ChumpDumper]

Not with American women off the internets.

[Sportcamper]

Poor guy is going to jail? With a name like Scooter, I’m sure he’ll be popular... You know what they say about scooters: They’re fun to ride till your friends see you...

[ggoose25]

Poor guy is going to jail? With a name like Scooter, I’m sure he’ll be popular... You know what they say about scooters: They’re fun to ride till your friends see you...
:lol

[Sportcamper]

People are saying that Scooter Libby is taking a bullet for Dick Cheney, but I’m not sure about that... Because if Cheney wants someone to take a bullet, he usually delivers it himself...

[xrayzebra]

People are saying that Scooter Libby is taking a bullet for Dick Cheney, but I’m not sure about that... Because if Cheney wants someone to take a bullet, he usually delivers it himself...

Jim, you are being aggressive today. :lol The think I
like about all this is that someone got convicted of something
dealing with a "no crime committed" offense. Is America
great or what?

[ChumpDumper]

Um, you guys wanted to remove a sitting president for this kind of thing. Now it's not a crime?

You were for perjury prosecutions before you were against them.

Nice.

[exstatic]

Um, you guys wanted to remove a sitting president for this kind of thing. Now it's not a crime?

You were for perjury prosecutions before you were against them.

Nice.
Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner. Apparently, the GOP now thinks perjury is no big fucking deal.

[gtownspur]

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner. Apparently, the GOP now thinks perjury is no big fucking deal.


Yes we're the hippocrites, you're right. Perjury is no big deal. That's why i'm sure your trekkie ass wants Libby to go free.

[ChumpDumper]

It won't be a big deal. Libby will be pardoned and Bush's legacy will be assured.

[exstatic]

It won't be a big deal. Libby will be pardoned and Bush's legacy will be assured.
Yup. I'd bet my house equity on it. I only hope the judge doesn't let him go free during appeals. A year or so in a jail cell might do wonders to loosen his tongue.

[gtownspur]

Yup. I'd bet my house equity on it. I only hope the judge doesn't let him go free during appeals. A year or so in a jail cell might do wonders to loosen his tongue.


what's the point. THere was no crime committed. It was Armitage who leaked.

And, I didn't expect perjury to be such a big deal w/ you.

[ggoose25]

lying under oath is a crime. regardless of whether the info was leaked classified information or not.

[exstatic]

what's the point. THere was no crime committed. It was Armitage who leaked.

And, I didn't expect perjury to be such a big deal w/ you.
Do you even read the news? None of the 5 charges were related to the leak. Everyone was related to lying and obstruction of justice.

Oh, and I DID expect perjury to be a bigger deal with you. You had such conniptions about it 10 years ago...

[Liar]

I like Libby's style.

[BIG IRISH]

So Libby is guilty!!!! But lets not forget that this is only the tip of the iceberg. Remember he lied to protect his bosses?
His bosses outed Valerie Plame in retalliation against Joe Wilson for exposing their lie about getting us into this war.

He's guilty of lying to a grand jury thats it. He's not guilty for outing a agent that was never undercover.
Fitzgerald the Prosecutor said;"I do not expect to file any further charges."
:bang What is Fitzgerlds next job, Chief Counsel for Halburton?

I wouldn't be surprised to see Cheney resign, Ill Health :rolleyes .

I bet a Pardon is in the works, and I wonder where Libby will go to work?

Libby is a scape goat, and the real blame for the "Outing" needs to go to Dick Armitage.

He has already stated that he might have accidentally released her name and no one even bothered to put him on the stand. Wonder if this will come up during the civil trial?

And just what kind of operative was she anyway? She looks like eye candy for some old rich guy rather than some sort of CIA Agent.

Now, on to the story of Sandy Berger stealing classified documents (and admitted it) and stuffing them in his pants/socks ...... why is that guy walking around like he's on vacation?

Why in the hell isn't he sitting in a jail and he is going to get his security clearance back :bang Old news I guess :rolleyes

[ChumpDumper]

There's a question as to whether Plame's covert status had expired, and anyway if the president or vice-president decide to declassify something there's no crime. Armitage was just doing what everyone else was doing, blabbing the information they had been given to whoever would listen. He just didn't lie about doing it afterwards.

[BIG IRISH]

There's a question as to whether Plame's covert status had expired, and anyway if the president or vice-president decide to declassify something there's no crime. Armitage was just doing what everyone else was doing, blabbing the information they had been given to whoever would listen. He just didn't lie about doing it afterwards.

I bet he would have lied if He had been called before the GJ, Why
wasn't Dick Head Chaney called before the GJ, ?????

[ChumpDumper]

No need to, really. Fitzgerald probably found out Cheney was the source of the leak and concluded no law was broken as far as the actual leak was concerned. It makes sense.

[BIG IRISH]

No need to, really. Fitzgerald probably found out Cheney was the source of the leak and concluded no law was broken as far as the actual leak was concerned. It makes sense.

If no law was broken until libby went before the grand Jury I still can't understand why no one else, higher up, DC, ROVE, etc, from the Administration was called maybe because fitz was looking for a career
move or he knew the following would happen?


http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/cartoons/070307.jpg