Reply With Quote
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.
No. It's a pardon and he is free.
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.
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.
That may be but, it doesn't explain the juror's whacky comment.
Joseph Wilson wouldn't know the truth if it bit him.
Looks like it bit scooter instead.
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.
Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 03-06-2007 at 04:29 PM.
Juror Explains Libby Verdict: They Felt He Was 'Fall Guy'
Editor and PublisherNEW 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."
i feel sorry for libby too. its prolly hard being the only republican to be held accountable for their actions.
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 ed 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 en led 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 en led 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.
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?
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.
"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 head 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. head is insanely fond of secrecy and secret govt, so he's a reflexive liar.
Can't argue with that logic.
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.
Nah, the war in Iraq is a deadly serious, tragic mistake.
That's right. The jury just surmised through evidence that others had committed crimes. They fell bad for the sacrificial sheep.
Libby is just a fall guy.
I smell a pardon.
.... and a Medal of Freedom.
you're doing a heckuva job, scootie
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.
I hope so.
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
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
