Libby jury confused over where the crime is

[Stinger]

[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]By MATT APUZZO[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]WASHINGTON (AP) - Juror notes in the CIA leak case suggest some jury room confusion about what exactly former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby is accused of doing.

My Way News - CIA Leak Jury's Notes Suggest Confusion



WELL DUH.

No one here has been able to specifically cite the willful lie knowingly told to obstruct justice.



[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]"In their questions, which were released Tuesday morning, jurors seemed confused about what Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was alleging.
Were prosecutors saying Libby knew that Plame worked for the CIA by the time of his FBI interview, jurors asked, or does the government believe Libby's account of the Cooper conversation was untrue?"



And who cares anyway? His memory is no better than any of the witnesses who each had to revise and extend their original statements when the evidence showed they couldn't recall who and where they first heard about Plame.

So how about it, what was the offense and what is the evidence?

[/FONT]

[/FONT]

 

[Simon W. Moon]

[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif] No one here has been able to specifically cite the willful lie knowingly told to obstruct justice[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]

So how about it, what was the offense and what is the evidence?[/FONT][/FONT]

Actually, its been spelled out to you before - you must have forgotten.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/5055-fitzgerald-got-creative-expected-2.html#post128127
http://www.debatepolitics.com/archi...e-proof-original-indictment-5.html#post130841
http://www.debatepolitics.com/archi...e-proof-original-indictment-5.html#post130511

 

[jfuh]

Hey stinger, spin with your apologetics all you want; the facts are out LIBBY IS GUILTY
The Jury isn't confused at all.

 

[Billo_Really]

 

[Stinger]

Hey stinger, spin with your apologetics all you want; the facts are out LIBBY IS GUILTY
The Jury isn't confused at all.

""What we came up with from that," he said, "was that Libby was told about Mrs. Wilson [Valerie Plame] nine times" in that time period. "We believed he DID have a bad memory," he said, "but it seemed very unlikely he would not remember about being told about Mrs. Wilson" so many times....Hard to believe he would remember on Tuesd and forget on Thursday," and so on."

Doesn't sound like beyond reasonable doubt to me. And they were still asking this morning what the crime was, confused?

 

[disneydude]

""What we came up with from that," he said, "was that Libby was told about Mrs. Wilson [Valerie Plame] nine times" in that time period. "We believed he DID have a bad memory," he said, "but it seemed very unlikely he would not remember about being told about Mrs. Wilson" so many times....Hard to believe he would remember on Tuesd and forget on Thursday," and so on."

Doesn't sound like beyond reasonable doubt to me. And they were still asking this morning what the crime was, confused?

In the words of the 80's band "Dead or Alive":

** You spin me right ‘round, baby
Right ‘round like a record, baby
Right ‘round, ‘round, ‘round,
You spin me right ‘round, baby
Right ‘round like a record, baby
Right ‘round, ‘round, ‘round


Its just your sour grapes. The jury must have been confused, the jury was stupid, the jury was wrong....spin spin spin.

Maybe you should stop pulling the wool over your own eyes and stop apologizing for everything this corrupt administration does.

Libby lied and got caught....and like several of the jurors said, they believe that Libby was the fall guy for the administration....which is what the majority of the people in this country believe.....is this kind of stuff what you consider "restoring honor and integrity to the whitehouse"....must be since you'll defend this administration til the grave.

 

[Stinger]

In the words of the 80's band "Dead or Alive":

** You spin me right ‘round, baby
Right ‘round like a record, baby
Right ‘round, ‘round, ‘round,
You spin me right ‘round, baby
Right ‘round like a record, baby
Right ‘round, ‘round, ‘round


Its just your sour grapes. The jury must have been confused, the jury was stupid, the jury was wrong....spin spin spin.


Well then figure out this, the question they posed to the judge

""We would like clarification of the term 'reasonable doubt,'" the note said. "Specifically, is it necessary for the government to present evidence that it is not humanly possible for someone not to recall an event in order to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?""

IOW if the government can't prove he lied, that it wasn't just a memory slip, does that mean we can't find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

Maybe you should stop pulling the wool over your own eyes and stop apologizing for everything this corrupt administration does.

Libby lied and got caught....

Knowingly and willfully for the purpose of obstructing justice? Did it prevent Fitzgerald from carrying out his duty to find out who to Novak Plames name and whether a crime had been committed. Fitzgerald already knew that.

and like several of the jurors said, they believe that Libby was the fall guy for the administration...

Fall guy would mean the he committed a crime along with someone else. What was the crime and who was the other person?

.which is what the majority of the people in this country believe....

Which certainly is evidence of nothing. Many still think Wilson expose something and was correct in his NYT editorial. We know that wasn't the case.

is this kind of stuff what you consider "restoring honor and integrity to the whitehouse"....must be since you'll defend this administration til the grave.

Since it didn't need restoring......................but tell me why do you hold the position that the WH should not have exposed the false statements Wilson was making?

And as the jurors asked, where was the crime?

 

[jfuh]

""What we came up with from that," he said, "was that Libby was told about Mrs. Wilson [Valerie Plame] nine times" in that time period. "We believed he DID have a bad memory," he said, "but it seemed very unlikely he would not remember about being told about Mrs. Wilson" so many times....Hard to believe he would remember on Tuesd and forget on Thursday," and so on."

Doesn't sound like beyond reasonable doubt to me. And they were still asking this morning what the crime was, confused?

:roll: Why am I not surprised that it doesn't sound so to you? If this were hillary you'd be screaming guilty all the way to mars.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

We're not talking about Hillary and we're not talking about Stinger.

 

[Stinger]

:roll: Why am I not surprised that it doesn't sound so to you? If this were hillary you'd be screaming guilty all the way to mars.

That's the best you got?

 

[disneydude]

Well then figure out this, the question they posed to the judge

""We would like clarification of the term 'reasonable doubt,'" the note said. "Specifically, is it necessary for the government to present evidence that it is not humanly possible for someone not to recall an event in order to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?""

IOW if the government can't prove he lied, that it wasn't just a memory slip, does that mean we can't find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

Look...that is a very common jury question. I knew Libby was in trouble when the question was posed because I work in criminal law and I see that question come up in at least 60% of all criminal trials I have been involved in.

Jurors get confused over what "reasonable doubt" means. Most of the time, the question comes up when you have 1 or 2 jurors that think that it means beyond a "shadow of a doubt". "Reasonable doubt" simply means that it you have any "real" or "reasonable" doubt that the charges have been met, then you are obligated to find the person not guilty. It doesn't mean that any "possible" doubt must be eliminated because as the California Jury instruction says "because everything related to human affairs is capable of possible or imaginary doubt."

Knowingly and willfully for the purpose of obstructing justice? Did it prevent Fitzgerald from carrying out his duty to find out who to Novak Plames name and whether a crime had been committed. Fitzgerald already knew that.

Yes...in fact it did. Libby lied to a federal prosecutor.

Fall guy would mean the he committed a crime along with someone else. What was the crime and who was the other person?

When I say fall guy...I am referring to my belief that Libby was specifically directed by Cheney/Rove to distribute the name/information in retaliation against Wilson. I understand that Cheney was not on trial, but I along with many of the jurors believe that they probably should have been. I think Libby unfortunately is going to pay the price for the actions of many in this corrupt administration. But he will be pardoned...which will just be further evidence of how corrupt this administration is.


Remember when GWB ran on the platform of restoring honor and integrity to the whitehouse? If he was sincere about doing so, maybe he should have surrounded himself with people of integrity instead of the people he did. It was either poor judgement on his part (which I tend to believe as evidenced by his poor judgement throughout his presidency) or he said what he needed to say to get elected.

 

[Stinger]

Look...that is a very common jury question. I knew Libby was in trouble when the question was posed because I work in criminal law and I see that question come up in at least 60% of all criminal trials I have been involved in.

Both of them together showed a confused jury that couldn't figure out what the charge was or even if a crime had been committed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
Knowingly and willfully for the purpose of obstructing justice? Did it prevent Fitzgerald from carrying out his duty to find out who to Novak Plames name and whether a crime had been committed. Fitzgerald already knew that.

Yes...in fact it did. Libby lied to a federal prosecutor.

How when he already knew how her name and CIA association was leaked and that it wasn't any of the people he was putting before a grand jury?

When I say fall guy...I am referring to my belief that Libby was specifically directed by Cheney/Rove to distribute the name/information in retaliation against Wilson.

In response to his bogus assertions he was publicly making? That was not a crime. There was no "falling" to be done.

I understand that Cheney was not on trial, but I along with many of the jurors believe that they probably should have been.

For what, he was doing exactly what he should have been doing, exposing the truth.

I think Libby unfortunately is going to pay the price for the actions of many in this corrupt administration.

So it doesn't matter what they go to jail for as long as they go to jail because even though you can't prove anyone is corrupt then should just go anyway.

That' the kind of politics you support?

But he will be pardoned...which will just be further evidence of how corrupt this administration is.

Why would that be evidence of any corruption? You seem to still be under the impression that exposing Wilson's lies was a crime, it was not, it was a duty.

Remember when GWB ran on the platform of restoring honor and integrity to the whitehouse?

And to government and when someone claimed they were acting on behalf of the VP, or at the least that the information they had had been reported to him, and that someone was committing a fraud they exposed it. Why does that bring dishonor and show a lack of integrity?

If he was sincere about doing so, maybe he should have surrounded himself with people of integrity instead of the people he did.

Since they have shown no lack of it...............

But I note how you want to criminalize it anyway.

It was either poor judgement on his part (which I tend to believe as evidenced by his poor judgement throughout his presidency) or he said what he needed to say to get elected.

The poorer judgement would have been letting Wilson continue with his propaganda. Why do you support the idea that Wilson's lies should have been allowed to stand?

 

[disneydude]

Working in the justice system, I respect a jury's decision whether I agree with it or not....because I truly believe that we have the best justice system in the world.

It is not uncommon to hear people whine and complain about a jury's verdict. Some people complain when people get a not guilty verdict. Others complain when the verdict is guilty...but their rationale is always the same as it is with Stinger: BLAME THE JURY.

I respect each and every verdict involved in all of my cases. Why? Because I am not back there in the deliberating room. I am not a party to the deliberations. I believe that when you pick twelve individuals from various backgrounds and life experience that they are going to come to the correct verdict. I don't always agree with it...but I respect it.

If the verdict had been not guilty, I would have been surprised but I would have respected the jury's decision.

This BLAME THE JURY mentality is little more than sour grapes from people who are upset that people don't see things the same way that they do. Well, you know what, thats the real world.

 

[Billo_Really]

The judicial system in this country has nothing to do with justice,
but everything to do with revenue!

 

[disneydude]

The judicial system in this country has nothing to do with justice,
but everything to do with revenue!

Off the subject...but I do agree with you Billo on many levels. Here in Los Angeles, justice varies greatly depending upon where you are arrested. For instance, DA's in the Valley ask for about 4 times the sentence that DA's downtown LA ask for...its sad but true.
Additionally....so much about the justice system is based on revenue....which is why they will never decriminalize drugs. Drug cases account for 3/4 of all cases here in Los Angeles. That keeps a lot of judges, clerks, court reporters, bailiffs, sheriffs, defense lawyers...etc. employed. You would cut the budget of probation by 75% if the courts didn't deal with drug offenses.
Very true....very much of justice depends on revenue.

However....once a case goes to trial and put in the hands of a jury. I do respect their verdict regardless if I personally think it is correct.

 

[Stinger]

Working in the justice system, I respect a jury's decision whether I agree with it or not....because I truly believe that we have the best justice system in the world.

You can respect what they found and still disagree on what the evidence was can't you.

Why do we have appeals courts which over-rule juries? From their questions and statements afterwards there was confusion and perhaps some prejudice, their wanting to have Rove and Cheney and even Bush on the stand. That should not have been any part of their deliberation.

But the bottom line is that it should never have gone to trial in the first place and once Fitzgerald was told who told Novak it should have ended. Instead he went on a hunt to find something to charge someone with even putting Miller in jail for not telling him what he already knew.

 

[disneydude]

You can respect what they found and still disagree on what the evidence was can't you.

Why do we have appeals courts which over-rule juries? From their questions and statements afterwards there was confusion and perhaps some prejudice, their wanting to have Rove and Cheney and even Bush on the stand. That should not have been any part of their deliberation.

But the bottom line is that it should never have gone to trial in the first place and once Fitzgerald was told who told Novak it should have ended. Instead he went on a hunt to find something to charge someone with even putting Miller in jail for not telling him what he already knew.

Nothing but more sour grapes. I'll tell you what I tell my clients, Appealing is a great right, but don't expect much to happen. Do you know how few cases are overturned on appeal? Less than 1% and of those, most are not overturned to grant a new trial but to correct things such as sentencing error. Out of thousands of cases that I have personally handled I have had 2 in 15 years come back on appeal. Both were for judicial error in jury instruction. Most cases that come back on appeal for things other than error correction come back for things such as judicial instructional error or prosecutorial misconduct. It is extremely rare that a case is ever overturned on appeal for juror misconduct which seems to be what you are attempting to hang your hat on. In almost all cases, the Court of Appeals gives great credence to the jury verdict. However, this is a very politically charged case, so anything can happen.
As far as the "misconduct" you cited by the jury about wanting Cheney/Bush/Rove on the stand and it entering their deliberations....I may have missed it, but every juror that I heard interviewed said that that never entered into their deliberations.
Look....again....you can defend this administration to the grave....and you can whine and cry about the jury verdict....and you can call them all idiots....but at some point it makes more sense to simply admit that you were wrong.

 

[Stinger]

Nothing but more sour grapes.

Then I just guess there is no point in continuing. When you want to discuss it on it's merits let me know.