Boy, this sure looks like someone's trying to preemptively argue that this was an unfair trial just in case the jury finds Libby guilty. What does it matter if the judge (nominated by
Bush, by the way) is (err, might be) a Democrat?
Do you have any reasons to think the jury pool was "tainted" and that the 12 (now 11) jurors are unqualified to reach a fair verdict, other than DC being largely black and Democratic?
What makes you characterize the judge's rulings as "bizarre"? I'm not a lawyer and don't know much about the laws at play here, but even the blog entry you linked to states:
[ QUOTE ]
...Judge Walton made it quite clear before the trial started that “the memory defense” was only permissible if the defendant testified. He made it seem that this was a matter of legal precedent, not his own whim. The defense team did not protest that, giving me the impression they agreed that this was in fact the way it usually worked.
[/ QUOTE ]Also, Judge Walton stated:
[ QUOTE ]
I did not intend to suggest there had been intentional misleading on that matter.
[/ QUOTE ](To be fair, I actually clicked through and read the article you linked to--these passages aren't available on the front page.)
It seems clear to me that the judge did not trying "to coerce the defense to make Libby testify." I don't see what is "HIGHLY irregular" about the judge making it clear at the beginning of the trial that certain arguments would only be allowed contingent upon Libby taking the stand himself and then not allowing those arguments to be used after it became clear that (for whatever reason) Libby wouldn't testify. Nor is it clear to me how this "raise[s] a lot of question of his [impartiality]."
At least wait until the verdict is in before screaming about a liberal bias. Who knows, he might get off, in which case I'll assume you'll be satisfied that justice has been served.
QoQ: Dumb response on your part.