Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Libby (Trial) Update {Juror Dismissed From Case }
NRO (The Corner) ^ | 2/26/07 | Byrion York

Posted on 02/26/2007 6:57:45 AM PST by PhatHead

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400401-408 next last
To: shrinkermd

Fitz has caught Watergate Syndrome, which affects virtually every reporter born since 1940, and many lawyers and judges as well. When a prosecutor gets this kind of a gig, visions of "All the President's Men" start dancing in his head, and he can only think about making HISTORY, being portrayed in the MOVIE, and to hell with the facts.


361 posted on 02/26/2007 4:06:08 PM PST by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle

To finish my thought: the really terrible thing about Watergate Syndrome is that it's incurable.


362 posted on 02/26/2007 4:08:09 PM PST by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: Sooth2222

You guess entirely too many. The answer is ZERO, NONE, NADA, etc.


363 posted on 02/26/2007 4:11:12 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

To: Enchante

You are absolutely correct. Most likely she's a little confused about why Dick Cheney and George Bush aren't in there in yellow jumpsuits.


364 posted on 02/26/2007 4:15:15 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black

Uh, the Franciscans ran your Art department or something?


365 posted on 02/26/2007 4:16:15 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: FormerACLUmember

hmmm, then why did Libby's lawyers agree to an 11 person jury and Fitzfong didn't?


366 posted on 02/26/2007 4:32:25 PM PST by Mercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: Mercat

"hmmm, then why did Libby's lawyers agree to an 11 person jury and Fitzfong didn't?"

I keep posting this to no avail. Why does everybody assume it has to do with the jury makeup? It seems to me much much more likely it has to do with who the alternate was. Another poster said she was reported to have rolled her eyes during the defense summation. Methinks we have hundreds of posts about nothing.


367 posted on 02/26/2007 4:46:56 PM PST by Bogeygolfer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 366 | View Replies]

To: Mercat

I've heard that the first alternate was rolling her eyes at the defense summary. Interesting that they've gone another day without a verdict. How long was the testimony?


368 posted on 02/26/2007 4:47:03 PM PST by AmishDude (It doesn't matter whom you vote for. It matters who takes office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 366 | View Replies]

To: Bogeygolfer
Methinks we have hundreds of posts about nothing.

That's par for this trial, Bogeygolfer.

369 posted on 02/26/2007 4:49:35 PM PST by AmishDude (It doesn't matter whom you vote for. It matters who takes office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

"That's par for this trial, Bogeygolfer."

What the heck is a par? Very funny by the way.


370 posted on 02/26/2007 4:58:18 PM PST by Bogeygolfer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 369 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
FWIW, it seems the Federal Judges are using the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure just like they previously used Malleus Maleficarum--to punish people for mistaken beliefs and memory. Only now, no torture except the knowledge if you fail their tests you will go to prison regardless of your inability to conform your conduct to the mistaken assumptions they made into laws by ignorance.
Well said. As one with close personal experience with a JimmyCrat federal judge, I know for a fact that there are judges (and federal prosecutors) using this system for their own personal inquisition.
371 posted on 02/26/2007 5:42:58 PM PST by Snerdley (Pacifists are the parasites of freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: Bogeygolfer; AmishDude
Methinks we have hundreds of posts about nothing.

That's par for this trial, Bogeygolfer.

That's absolutely right. As Freeper dwfgator pointed out this was "a Seinfeld trial, a trial about nothing". Par for the course.

372 posted on 02/26/2007 6:11:24 PM PST by CutePuppy (If you don't ask the right questions you may not get the right answers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: Bogeygolfer

" It seems to me much much more likely it has to do with who the alternate was. Another poster said she was reported to have rolled her eyes during the defense summation."

David Shuster physically demonstrated her courtroom demeanor during the defense closing.
She had a scowl on her face and her arms crossed in a very hostile manner.
Shuster despises Libby, but, I think even he was amazed at her obvious antipathy towards Libby.


373 posted on 02/26/2007 6:18:10 PM PST by Wild Irish Rogue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: tiredoflaundry; All

I heard a few comments on Fox that it might have been given to the juror from the media.

Hmmmm ..?? That either means Fitz was afraid his case was going in the toilet and he purposely sabotaged his own trial by having somebody from the media taint the jury ....

or .....

Somebody from the media got nervous that Fitz was going to lose and they decided to take matters into their own hands ..??

But .. one thing that puzzles me .. if the juror INFORMED THE REST OF THE JURY REGARDING WHAT THEY LEARNED .. then it would automatically disqualify the rest of the jury.

I'm guessing the juror only told the Jury Foreman and not the rest of the jury .. so only the one juror was dismissed.


374 posted on 02/26/2007 7:14:12 PM PST by CyberAnt (Drive-By Media: Fake news, fake documents, fake polls)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Wild Irish Rogue
She also fahted.
375 posted on 02/26/2007 7:17:49 PM PST by Candor7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt
I'm guessing the juror only told the Jury Foreman and not the rest of the jury .. so only the one juror was dismissed.

If she indicated that she'd found out about Plame's status, without saying what her status actually was, I wouldn't think that statement would necessarily taint other jurors who heard it.

That raises an interesting point, though: what might a juror have found out, other than Ms. Plame's status, that would result in disqualification, and what sort of juror would discover Ms. Plame's status?

Certainly I would expect any juror who discovered Ms. Plame's actual status to feel cheated by the prosecutor and acquit on that basis if no other. It's thus hardly surprising that Mr. Fitzgerald wants to keep the jury in the dark. I'm not sure what the jury thinks of that, though. I would hope they'd realize that it's the prosecution, not the defense, that's trying to hide Ms. Plame's status from them. Not sure how they'll figure that out, though.

376 posted on 02/26/2007 9:00:24 PM PST by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 374 | View Replies]

To: supercat

The Wash Po ombudswoman had an article in Sunday's paper on Plame's status.


377 posted on 02/26/2007 10:04:54 PM PST by the Real fifi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul

Gee, I thought he had a pretty impressive budget for this project including staffing, travel, office and amenities. I guess if his salary is the same (which you say it is), there must not be any economic incentive. How about his ego, being in the spotlight non stop? Could that be a factor?


378 posted on 02/26/2007 11:20:38 PM PST by anton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: supercat

I'm trying to remember an article I read recently regarding the defense being unhappy about a certain piece of information not being allowed to be entered into evidence.

I've even forgotten what it was .. darn it .. but it was very key to the case and the jury should have been allowed to know it.

If the juror happened to read that article .. it would have potentially tainted her ability to be impartial.

But .. like you said, if she only revealed that she had found out something but hadn't actually revealed what it was that she found .. then the other jurors would still be okay.

As for Plame's "status" - I believe it was Fitz himself who announced to the media that this trial was not about Plame's status - which meant to me that she was not covert so it no longer mattered that she was being talked about by most of the media.


379 posted on 02/27/2007 12:16:55 AM PST by CyberAnt (Drive-By Media: Fake news, fake documents, fake polls)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah

More Libby trial developments, as seen by Tom Maguire from Just One Minute

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/02/ten_little_nine.html

I would like to think that he's right, although in an interview with Raw Story, he thinks that it's a remote possibility for Libby to be cleared on all charges. Link to get to Raw story interview is here http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/02/im_afraid_to_lo.html

***

He's fast - check this out too. He makes fun of EJ Dionne and both take a swipe at Chris Matthews

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/02/ej_dionne_stuck.html


380 posted on 02/27/2007 4:13:39 AM PST by saveliberty (Liberalism (called Middle of the Road by MSM) = You are free to do as you are told.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400401-408 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson