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.
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.
I think you make a good case for abortion.
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/arti...0.html?cnn=yes
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Really? The "...what is Libby doing here..." and "...where's Rove..." portions of the statement don't lead you to that conclusion?
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.
It is laughable how repubs. are satisfied with libby taking the fall. That's some loyalty.
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, , 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.
Who's satisfied?
Which is why the jury did not buy that defense, and found Libby guilty. I think you're finally catching on.
It's not silly. Libby didn't make the dope, but got caught during delivery.
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.
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.
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.
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 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/arti...0.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.
That probably would have been a better defense than the "scapegoat" defense.
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?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
