Reply With Quote
A little dissapointed that Wells didn't shed some more crocodile tears.
Whether he shoots you in the face or s you in the ass, Cheney always gets his man.
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
A little dissapointed that Wells didn't shed some more crocodile tears.
Whether he shoots you in the face or s you in the ass, Cheney always gets his man.
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 head, who were involved?
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 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.
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.
Just think. It won't even affect Cheney's sleep.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
You must be mistaken.
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?
Were any conditions required before cheney would agree to talk to investigators? hmmm.
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.
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.
You must be mistaken.
I hope this a photoshop. I know FoxNews is slanted, but this would make them Yoni.
Well, it's true. Not the whole truth, but a certain fragment of it.
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.
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."
that's good since he was neither charged with nor convicted of conspiracy.Except for the fact that none of the charges had anything to do with a conspiracy.
If they convicted Libby for what the evidence shows Libby did, none of this matters.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.
nice omission Yoni.
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.
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 does Karl Rove and "the others" have to do with it?
end of story.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
