Libby (Trial) Update {Juror Dismissed From Case }

NRO (The Corner) ^ | 2/26/07 | Byrion York

[PhatHead]

Not sure what this means — but we've just gotten an announcement that the parties in the Libby trial have been asked to come to the courtroom at 9:45 this morning. Could be some sort of inquiry, or it could be bigger.

[GOP_Muzik]

Getting to be a director of MOMA, particularly 20 years ago was reaching the very pinacle of the art world. It speaks of a huge amount of personal accomplishment, which often leads one to be thoughful and conservative.

While all logic dictates that, I can say without a doubt that this woman would have never even been considered for a position at MoMA if she even THOUGHT about supporting anything resembling conservative causes.

I actually know a musician who was removed from a judging board of MoMA because he supported Bush in '04. Although it wasn't the 'official' reason there was no other explanation.

[popdonnelly]

You have to believe that a high-priced defense team like Libby's knows these jurors very, very well. If they are happy this woman is off the jury, that must be good for Libby. Whether it gets him acquitted or not, we shall see.

[piasa]

How could it be inadvertant- one of the courtroom help fail to clip out the Libby trial references in her issue of a newspaper?

[arthurus]

Of course F will retry. This is his gravy train. The lơnger he stretches it the more gravy there is.

[muawiyah]

No, not "elephant dung", but "donky dung".

[Democratshavenobrains]

Usually the DUHers think everything will result in Bush getting impeached. Nice to see they have some sort of reality.

[Ingtar]

Judging from my recent jury experience, if someone did taint the jury by bringing in outside information, they are in for some very rough times ahead. I can make a case in my head for someone bringing information for either position on a conviction. But (if true) from my experience I think is more likely someone brought in information trying to convince for conviction... but this is not a normal case.

[Democratshavenobrains]

HuffPo is for people too dumb to fit in at Daily Kos. That should tell you all you need to know.

[muawiyah]

How about Huffington?

[AmishDude]

Nah, Salon is much more prestigious than Huff. That's top-of-the-line online moonbattery there.

[piasa]

Eleven are easier to convince; plus, anything new you add to the deliberation mix is destabilizing, and the government generally wants stability and good order, not chaos.

When the gov is honestly prosecuting a non-political case this would be true.

But in this case confusion would only help the prosecution. Clarity would lead jurors to ask too many questions, like why the prosecution thinks Libby lied when everyone looks like they're lying. If they got too many answers they'd wonder why case was being prosecuted at all. Confusion would cloud these fundamental questions and lead juries to give up trying to sort it all out and just focus on the narrow items the prosecution screamed the most about.

In this case it's the defense that needs clarity and stability the most.

[the Real fifi]

I have been very crticial of Fitz..But he is being paid his regular salary as a US Atty. He gets no more or less for continuing w/ this case.

[Bogeygolfer]

"You have to believe that a high-priced defense team like Libby's knows these jurors very, very well. If they are happy this woman is off the jury, that must be good for Libby. Whether it gets him acquitted or not, we shall see."

I don't think this has anything to do with the environment in the jury room. Everybody is postulating that this is based on how both sides feel this impacts the sitting jury. It seems so much more likely that the simple answer may be the right one. The defense doesn't like the alternate juror and the prosecution does. It seems to me they themselves don't really know what's going on so to make a decision on the alternate based on your best guess as to how the jurors are working seems a gamble. The only firm basis they do have is how they view the alternate.

[muawiyah]

Turning into a "retired federal employee" means, in general, that you don't steal, don't lie, don't trifle with other people, don't come to work late, don't leave work early, do your assigned tasks even if you disagree with the mission, and so forth.

The other guys who drink too much, steal, lie, mess over people, arrive late, leave early, do the 2 hour drinking lunch, and slough off their asignments are gotten rid of ~ slowly but surely.

Then there's the crowd who work for heavily endowed museums and other NGOs ~ you wouldn't want them delivering your mail or driving your tanks, Fur Shur.

[oceanview]

if there is an acquittal, that will indeed be what it showed.

[mewzilla]

I have been very crticial of Fitz..But he is being paid his regular salary as a US Atty. He gets no more or less for continuing w/ this case.

Unless he's angling for something in a 'Rat administration.

In any case, Fitz, hope your reputation was worth it.

[Jack Black]

I do have a lot of respect for my mailman. So, I see your point.

[AmishDude]

I have been very crticial of Fitz..But he is being paid his regular salary as a US Atty. He gets no more or less for continuing w/ this case.

Except that, with this case ongoing, he won't be fired either.

[FormerACLUmember]

The judge purged the jury of a pro-Libby vote.

The fix is in.

[shhrubbery!]

[Byron York]: I thought that as an art curator, she probably refused to put on the red T-shirt for purely aesthetic reasons.

I think York's got it right. Many of us misread her refusal to participate in the t-shirt group stunt. We didn't know twelve days ago about her previous profession.

This lady, rather than being an heroic contrarian, is more likely an elitist who thinks herself too chic to wear a t-shirt.

And if there's any possibility that a "former curator at the Museum of Modern Art" could be fair and open-minded about any member of the Bush administration, then I'll be gobsmacked.

And "modern art" is an oxymoron.