Libby guilty on 4/5 counts

[Felix_Nietzsche]

It takes a small mind to attack a spelling error rather than the subject at hand.
But perhaps you pay me a back-handed compliment for being unable to address my point.

[andyfox]

"Is it too much to expect fair and neutral juries."

OT, but yes, I think it is too much. Not when the lawyers are picking the jurors. How fair and neutral would the umpires be if George Steinbrenner was picking them?

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
A grand scheme is forming. A democratic leaning defense attorney must have purposely included these people. And it only took the great and wonderous puppet of the right -- Felixia, master of the peons -- to figure it out.


[/ QUOTE ]
In jury selection, the defense can excuse a jury one of two ways:
1st: The can use one of their alloted strikes to get rid of a juror, no questions asked.
2dd: The defense can petition the judge the juror has a bias and should be dimissed without using one of their strikes.

Since Washington, DC is HEAVILY democratic (unionized govt workers are overwhealmingly Democrats), the defense starts with a HUGE disadvantage. I blame the judge more than I blame Libby's attourneys.... The judge should have dismissed the jurors with a demonstrated bias...

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]

And Libby is convicted of lying about Tim Russert. Journalists have no special status deserving any respect. He should get an award for that, Russert is a long term Democrat operative who now pretends to be an objective journalist.

An honest prosecutor would file charges against Russert for his perjury in this trial.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. You claim Russert lied on the stand? Oh, you mean an honest Republican operative prosecutor.

2. There were 6 other people who took the stand and testified about conversations they had with Libby that were at odds with his statements to the FBI and testimony to the Grand Jury.

[Barcalounger]

[ QUOTE ]
So shouldn't the jury have had people that supported Bush's war in Iraq?
Should the jury have had people that said they were impressed with Cheney?

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but those 5 people can't be on every jury. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
"Is it too much to expect fair and neutral juries."

OT, but yes, I think it is too much. Not when the lawyers are picking the jurors. How fair and neutral would the umpires be if George Steinbrenner was picking them?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you drew from a balanced pool, you could do so because lawyers on both sides can strike a limited number of jurors. If you start with an unbalanced pool, you will end up with an unbalanced jury.

Remember the DC jury pool is made up of the same people who elected the convicted druggie Marion Barry.

-----added-----
The truth is that Scooter never had a fair and honest chance for a fair and honest verdict. Which means Bush would be entirely justified in issuing a pardon, something he would not be justified doing if there had been a fair trial.

When you stack the deck, you can't honestly complain if the result gets thrown out.

A good president would throw out a stacked deck verdict in the name of justice - Bush can pardon with a clear conscience here.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh?......so no evidence was presented against Rove or Cheney and yet this IMPARTIAL jurer claims Libby is a fall guy. Can anyone claim this jury was impartial and came to court with an open mind? If so how can they claim Libby was a "fall guy" without hearing evidence to support this claim?

[/ QUOTE ]

It was Libby's contention during the trial that he was being used as a scapegoat by the administration. I don't know how much evidence or testimony was offered to support this view, but it's not like that notion was created out of thin air by a biased jury.

[AngusThermopyle]

Time dot com:
[ QUOTE ]
The trial opened with a bang on January 23, as Wells declared, 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Point:
Libby was charged with lying, period. Not 'outing' Plame. Lying about converations with officials and reporters.


[/ QUOTE ]


Hmmm...

So I guess we can now agree that neither Democrats nor Republicans should lie. And we should never have to hear anyone complain about Clinton being impeached, since he has admitted to perjury.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Case Closed]

bgc,

I agree with you on the juries thing. It's a travesty when people get a raw deal because of politics.

Although I am sure this guy will get pardoned in the end. Democrats will complain and Republicans will call out Clinton. Nothing will really happen and people will think justice is served and things will carry on as usual and scooter will write a book or something and make a ton of cash.