Posted on 02/26/2007 6:57:45 AM PST by 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.
Wonder if THIS is why Russert was so jovial yesterday .. his demeanor made me nauseous AND .. Byron York .. who's written SO extensively on this case was on his Hillary/Obama panel!! And .. there was NOT ONE mention of this case ... like the elephant was right in there in the room. Unbelievably strange and suspicious to me.
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Feb-26-07 10:20 AM Response to Original message 1. How could this cause a mistrial? I mean, I know the theory, but as far as I've seen, there has been almost no media coverage of the Libby trial. How could there any juror be exposed to enough coverage to taint the trial? Unless the juror is a GOP loyalist who set out to deliberately cause a mistrial. :tinfoilhat: ?
Great word.
A legal expert for Fox just said that a mistrial would be a good thing for the prosecution because she didn't think the prosecution made a very good case.
I believe Lis Wiehl was the legal expert, and my memory says she is not a conservative.
Per Victoria Toensing in the WAshington Post.....
"In January 2001, Libby was the lawyer for millionaire financier Marc Rich, whom President Bill Clinton pardoned shortly before leaving office. Fitzgerald, who was then an assistant U.S. attorney in the southern district of New York, and U.S. Attorney James Comey spearheaded the criminal investigation of that pardon."
Comey selected Fitzgerald for this investigation.
That's what I'd do. LOL.
Oh, I was referring to the "real" Queen...Mrs. Pantsuit.
;0)
The Old Queen would simply be washed away in the exultation of the hoi polloi, the unwashed masses at having French Royalty (or Irish, whatever) in the Presidential chair. Francois F. Cary served in Viet Nam.
The new Queen, Tee-ray-zah F. Heinz has taken the name "Marie Antoinette" as her ruling pseudonym. It's rumored that she has in mind to depose the new King and let everyone eat cake.
This is the latest from the blogger in the courtroom:
***BREAKING: There has been exposure of at least one of the jurors to media coverage of the trial. There is discussion going on in chambers with Judge Walton and counsel for both sides as to how to proceed. There will likely be individual voir dire (discussions) with each and every juror now to determine if there is a taint to the jury process. We won't know anything about whether things will proceed until that has concluded. There is a possibility of a mistrial being declared but, again, we will not know anything unless and until the judge and attorneys speak with the jury foreperson and all of the jurors, and make their determination as to how things will or will not proceed from there. More news as we get it.***
>>My guess, then, is that this will hurt Libby. My other sense is that this jury was going to be hung.
This could be a way to get rid of one of the "hang-ups."
What preserves the integrity of the jury process? <<
I know this is gonna sound selfish. And, of course the trial needs to be fair.
But I really don't like the idea of retrying this case as the elections approach... This trial isn't what the election should be about.
Nice way of getting the trial throw out if someone got outside information, don't ya think?
Then Fitz could look for another jury & trial
Schuster just up on MSNBC and didn't seem quite so jovial.
I would actually watch Hairball tonight if a mistrial is declared and the judge announces this farce is over.
Wishful thinking, yeah I know.
Fox showed a blurb about a possible "tainted juror".
My other sense is that this jury was going to be hung.
I was taking your statement literally; let's hang the jury.
I think the real issue in this case is the question each juror should ask himself/herself: "Am I convinced that Libby intentionally attempted to deceive?"
I think I'd have a gut feel backed up by facts to come to that conclusion.
If all I get is a weak "Well...he could have...but....") then you cannot vote to convict the guy.
Notes are being passed to jury members from the media? I wonder if there could be charges filed against this media member? Maybe Patrick Fitzgerald can go after the real guilty party in all of this mess to begin with.
I think that depends on the Judge's instructions to the jury -- which I have not seen. IIRC, the judge will generally define for the jurors exactly what questions have to be answered "yes," in order to convict.
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.