It's simply one of many reasons he might choose not to testify or call Cheney to testify.
Why? But according to the paper of record that the left loves so much it is because his attorney's are confident of aquital and with the case that Fitzgerald present I can see why.
The case didn't find its way into the courtroom for no reason at all.
Pretty much it appease to be the caes and not one person since he was indicted has been able to state clearly what the obstruction of justice was and what they were trying to cover up.
I do not know whether he's guilty or not,
You know what the evidence is, I have no doubt that if it was clear he knowingly and willfully lied to obstruct justice you would have no problem stating so. Remember the evidence was be beyond a doubt. What is it.
but I do know that unless you have been following the case for hours upon hours every single day as the jury has, your opinion is uninformed.
No it isn't, the reporting and analysis has been quite intensive.
Personally I avoid news coverage of courtroom dramas like the plague, but that's just me.
Then you shouldn't be here trying to discuss or voting in the poll. Lot's of the rest of us do.
I didn't say he was guilty.
How do you think Libby got himself into trouble in the first place?
For lying before a federal grand jury and investigators NOT in the criminal trial. It doesn't happen.
How many hours a day does the jury spend hearing about this case?
Not all of them. Have you ever sat on a jury. A lot of the time is spent in the back room while attorney's argue points, But ALL the testimony upon which they will base their decision is PUBLIC. It is heard IN THE COURTROOM. And there are plenty of news reports on the key points being made.
There's nothing to discuss. I see no point in uninformed people getting into a ******* contest saying "He did it" and "Nuh-uh." You haven't the faintest idea whether he did it.
We know what the evidence, or rather lack of it is.
News futures markets are accurate predictors because markets are efficient. It's trading at 66% which means it's more likely than not he'll be convicted.
Well what are they basing that on? You claim on the one hand it is impossible to do so unless you sat on the jury, specious but that is your claim, then you turn around and cite some obscure website as being an accurate source. Which is it?
It's authoritative on predicting the likelihood that he'll be convicted:
Based on what?
It says nothing about what evidence was presented or whether he actually committed a crime or anything else.
Well heck what do we need trials for then? What do we need evidence for then? Why this is a solid as David Schuster's claim that he had convincing evidence Rove was going to be indicted and would be sitting in jail.
Desperation? I don't have any emotional attachment to this case either way;
Quoting gambling sites as authoritative.................................
I'd never heard of the guy prior to this scandal, and I'll forget about him in a couple years.
Most of us hadn't and most of us will.
You, on the other hand, seem to have quite an emotional stake in the outcome of this trial for some reason.
Using the courts to put your political opponents in jail and out of the way doesn't reek of good governance, does it. But then I have based my opinion on the facts and evidence present rather than desperate measures such as the MSM claiming that since Rove was Mr. "A" he was guilty and some obscure gambling site.
What are you saying about your political beliefs if you need a "not guilty" verdict to validate them?
Hmmmm maybe I believe that the courts are not for removing political opponents. But let's be clear, you are free to go back to the previous threads concerning this issue. I have been perfectly clear, that if any evidence was presented that Libby willfully and knowingly lied for the purpose of obstructing justice, too bad for him he would have consequences to face. The evidence is now in, there was no underlying crime, there is no evidence he committed perjury. If there is then state specifically what it was. I could care less about Libby, I do care when such sham trials are engaged in for political retribution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stinger
Why? Why evidence points to Libby willfully and knowingly lie for the purpose of obstruction of justice and be specific.
I didn't say he was guilty. Learn to read.
I didn't say you did, you said a gambling site did and I asked again for the umpteenth time, what is the evidence he lied for the purpose of obstructing justice.