Posted on 02/14/2007 5:53:43 PM PST by Anti-Bubba182
WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 — The lawyers defending I. Lewis Libby Jr. against perjury charges rested their case today, but not before suffering a series of defeats in legal rulings by the presiding judge......
.........Judge Walton ruled against Mr. Wells on two motions seeking Mr. Russert’s recall. Mr. Russert, in his testimony, denied that he had told Mr. Libby about Ms. Wilson as Mr. Libby had claimed....
.....But at the time Mr. Russert had already discussed his conversation with Mr. Libby with an F.B.I. agent and Mr. Wells asserted that Mr. Fitzgerald agreed not to raise that matter because it would have exposed Mr. Russert as a hypocrite and undercut his television statements that he was standing up for the First Amendment and reporters’ rights.
Judge Walton took the unusual step of questioning Mr. Russert’s lawyer, Lee Levine. Mr. Levine said he never discussed with Mr. Russert the agreement with the prosecutor not to raise the conversation with the F.B.I. agent. Judge Walton then the issue ruled it was irrelevant to the case.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
what do you make about the behavior of the jurors with these valentines day shirts? is this a trial, or a circus?
This stinks. I think maybe Bush made a mistake appointing this guy to the court.
He had an interesting youth, being involved in gangs and violence before he straightened out, but when he straightened out he seems to have drunk the liberal koolaid.
http://www.justicepolicy.org/article.php?id=319
It all boils down to closing arguments now. I'm pretty stunned by some of the rulings of this judge. Russert filed a false affidavit, and that is just OK with Judge Walton, at least that is my impression by his comments at the end of the day. I find this most distressing.
Back to grammer and spelling school for you.
The Juror T-Shirts did not look like a good sign. United Jurors would tend to make a quick decision. The prosecutor got a lot of breaks from this Judge and Libby may pick up the tab for that.
I was reading about that T-shirt gag...and surprising to ME..I felt creeped out by it for some reason.
Did you see the part in this story that said that the Judge said that the defense could tell the jury that Libby "had a lot on his plate"...but nothing more than Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson???
That doesn't even make sense or sound close to being "fair". My goodness...I am just a stay at home grandmother...but I know better than that. He is the Chief of Staff of the VPOTUS at a time of WAR...and the jury isn't supposed to know that he had a LOT to worry about besides some deadbeat diplomat and his society loving wife??
I mean, when I have served on juries - they dictated a dress code. obviously these jurors (all but one) have assembled into some kind of a "group" to agree to wear these shirts. what is going on here?
What's the deal with the t-shirts?
Juries in the hands of such Judges can not be considered to be fully informed, nor impartial. For the partiality of the Judge, biased against the defendant, shines through to the Jury.
that's what we are all wondering, it seems very inappropriate, regardless of whether its a signal that they are for conviction or acquittal.
I mean, I hadn't heard about the jurors wearing t-shirts. What did the shirts say?
the article describes them - valentine's day themed.
is it a sign that they think the trial is a joke?
not quite just the closings. First the prosecutor gets another chance to call witnesses to rebut the witnesses the defense just called. Then prosecutor close, defense close and prosecutor gets to rebut again. Next the judge gives the jury its instructions and defines the law(s) that is alleged to have been broken. Next is a verdict which has to be unanimous for either the prosecutor or for Libby.
I don't know, but if Libby loses their behavior should be brought up on the appeal.
There is a moral in this: do not screw with the judge.
Libby's defense led the judge to believe, apparently several times, that Libby would be testifying in the case. That almost assuredly was weighed by the judge in some of the decisions he made earlier in the case. Now Libby's not testifying after all, and the judge is angry that he has been deceived. So he is not giving the defense any benefits of the doubt now.
The defense here seems to have not put up a full battle. Not calling Cheney to testify is telling.
Not putting Libby up after you told the court he was testifying: these things really weaken the case and damage credibility.
So, why are they doing that? I assume these are well-connected and savvy lawyers. Why are they not pulling those above them into court to save their man?
My speculation is that it is because the Libby team knows the fix is in. If Libby doesn't haul them in and embarrass them, and doesn't take the stand and expose himself to damaging his bosses, he will probably be convicted. But then the President will be well-disposed to pardon him, and probably will.
Of course I have no idea this is so, but it seems the logical conclusion given the defense's surprising behavior. They're essentially laying down and letting themselves be killed. Which tells me that they know that he's got a Get Out Of Jail Free card.
Do you think they have a signed pardon?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.