Juror Explains Libby Verdict (".. what is HE doing here? Where is Rove and all these other guys..")

Editor&Publisher ^ | March 6, 2007 | Greg Mitchell

[chesley]

Denis Collins said, "We asked ourselves, what is HE doing here? Where is Rove and all these other guys....He was the fall guy."

[Grampa Dave]

Speaking of Media Bias. The MSM had one of their own moles on Libby's jury. More on the MSM's and Fitzy's juror plant, Denis Collins:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1796724/posts?page=1

New Revelations from Former 'Wash Post' Reportor/Libby Juror
Editor & Publisher ^ | March 07, 2007 | Joe Strupp


Posted on 03/07/2007 7:40:14 AM PST by txradioguy


NEW YORK Denis Collins, the juror in the Libby/CIA leak case who delivered a post-verdict commentary for the press, spent about a decade at The Washington Post. Today, after a night on cable TV shows, he re-appears with a massive recounting of his experience at the Huffington Post blog.

His story is billed as "INSIDE THE JURY ROOM: WHAT THE JURY THOUGHT, DAY BY DAY, WITNESS BY WITNESS, AT THE SCOOTER LIBBY TRIAL" by Denis Collins, Juror #9. It calls it "unedited" impressions, memories and facts. Other jurors' names are changed.

The New York Times today reports that he is a registered Democrat. He recalls that he revealed when considered for the jury that he had worked with Bob Woodward for three or four years and also with the Post's Walter Pincus, another witness at the trial. Until a year ago, Tim Russert was a neighbor and he even attended backyard barbeques at Russert's place. But attorneys at both tables merely offered "ain't this a small town" grins, he relates.

He adds that he went to grade school with the Times' Maureen Dowd, who allegedly had a crush on Collins' brother.

One of the lawyers asked him the subject of his 2005 book. "You wrote about the CIA?" Collins said yes, which along with his reporting connections amounted to the "perfect storm." He comments: "Yet here I am," on the CIA leak case jury.





This decision shows why DC has become a bed of illiterate liberal idiots.

This decision is more dangerous to White Conservative Males than Ben Laden and al Qaeda. Now we can be found guilty for any imaginary crime the liberals come up with.

Sandy Berger walks with an admitted act of theft of top secret documents and treason. Libby is charged and found guilty with an imaginary crime.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1796418/posts

Real Story Behind CIA Leak
Fox News Corp. ^ | 3-6-07 | John Gibson

Excerpt from this oped by John Gibson:
In any event Libby is a Republican and works for Dick Cheney to some liberals and to the media that in itself deserves Capital Punishment.

In contrast the national security advisor to President Bill Clinton, risking his livelihood, and his liberty stole classified documents from the national archives and destroyed them. He knew that this was a crime but the travesty is that he stole these documents in the midst of a bi-partisan commission's investigation into the terrorist attacks of 911. The implication of this act is treason.

The key questions, still unanswered are who was Mr. Berger covering up for? Was it his own mistakes as National Security Advisor that would be embarrassing to be made public by the 911 commission? Or, was he in fact covering up for mishandlings by Bill Clinton? History will never be able to re-create facts that were in those destroyed documents and therefore we may never know why the government failed to stop 911 from happening.

Almost 3000 Americans were murdered and the crime to cover up the facts surrounding that is largely unpunished. Mr. Berger is a liberal Democrat who worked for former President Bill Clinton. Being a Liberal Democrat who worked for the media beloved Bill Clinton got him a pass. So much for the balanced scales of justice.

[txrangerette]

I watched Collins on CSpan, repeated several times.

Here's what I took: He wasn't saying that he thought Libby didn't lie, but was a fall guy for somebody else who did. He was saying Libby did lie. He believed Russert's testimony and even said he believed ALL the reporters who testified...other than their poor memories, that is. Which he acknowledged. Also that Libby did have a poor memory, but not so poor as to make his defense to the charges believable, given what he took to be he facts of the case.

I didn't get that he was demanding to know why Rove and BUSH and CHENEY weren't in the dock. Just Rove and others in the administration he did not name. Now maybe he was thinking BUSH and CHENEY but he didn't say that. "Rove and these other guys" was kind of hard to parse. It was vague, except for Rove's name.

I believe the biggest problem - besides a "looks bad" factual case for Libby's innocence, is that most of the jury was inclined to believe the Prosecution and its star witnesses, and did not have that feeling about the defense. About them, I think they felt that something wrong probably went on in the administration, otherwise what on earth was all the fuss about and the special prosecutor and time and money etc put into this? The couple of jurors that they had to work hard to bring along with them were the exception, not the rule. They seemed to feel Libby could have been confused and memory challenged, as improbable as it seemed, and so were reluctant to convict. They got overcome and worn down with time and being in the minority.

I'm not saying there was no innate bias in this jury that was political. It's easy to believe there probably was. I'm saying his remarks don't show that to me. What his remarks showed me was too much respect for the Prosecution side going in, and not enough for the Defense side going in.

The benefit of the doubt went to the wrong persons.

JMO

Is the verdict reversible on this ground? DOUBT IT. No doubt many juries have made this error. But they did extensively deliberate on the charges and the evidence, unless his account was a total lie from beginning to end. Which will get them a passing grade, I think.

The impression created here, by some, that they ignored the facts, charges and evidence, and made decisions based on WHO WASN'T THERE, is just not supported by the Collins' press conference I watched several times.

That they were curious and suspicious about that...just what really did go down in the administration and where was the rest of it that this was the only case brought...was evident from his statement.

Thus, their mindset going in - I say - was ripe to credit the Prosecution too much and the "presumed innocent defendant" not enough.

[juliej]

Are these the same jurors who acquitted OJ Simpson? D.C. jurors are a joke - they had it in for the honky. And Firzgerald is a faggot - there, I said it!

[juliej]

Oh, you mean Hillary? Was she on that jury?

[Suzy Quzy]

Laura Ingraham said something like Fitzy has some demons. I think you may be right...maybe he's a self-loathing homosexual.

[AFPhys]

Thanks for your well expressed view of this. I didn't follow any of this at all (and am not a lawyer) so I really appreciate your detailed comments.

[Hoodat]

Why was Denis (one "n") the ONLY jurist that came out????

I am sure he won't be the only one to come out. It's just that he happened to be the only one who had his interviews pre-scheduled while the jury was still deliberating.

Just remember, satan always overplays his hand.

[highball]

Grounds for appeal? Yes. Grounds for overturning the conviction? Slim to none.

I'm not a lawyer, but wasn't the whole "he's a fall guy" thing set up by Libby's attorney in opening statements?

Sounds to me that the jurors believed the defense lawyers on the big picture (that he was being sacrificed to take the heat off others), while also being convinced that he lied to the grand jury. The two aren't necessarily exclusive.

I understand that the burden for getting a new trial is pretty high - maybe one of our resident lawyers can fill us in.

[Still Thinking]

So because he got Libby, he'll get bush?

[Still Thinking]

Might as well have been. I think they got their marching orders from her.

[.cnI redruM]

Guess who Libby's "jury of peers" were?

[highball]

Here's what I took: He wasn't saying that he thought Libby didn't lie, but was a fall guy for somebody else who did. He was saying Libby did lie. He believed Russert's testimony and even said he believed ALL the reporters who testified...other than their poor memories, that is. Which he acknowledged. Also that Libby did have a poor memory, but not so poor as to make his defense to the charges believable, given what he took to be he facts of the case.

That was my reading, as well.

I believe the biggest problem - besides a "looks bad" factual case for Libby's innocence, is that most of the jury was inclined to believe the Prosecution and its star witnesses, and did not have that feeling about the defense.

Changing strategies halfway through couldn't have helped. Why bring up in opening statements the notion that Scooter might have been set up to take the fall unless you plan to follow through on it? That can't have looked good to the jury.

[peekaboo]

This juror that was a reporter for the Washington Post and thought that Russert was credible, is also a neighbor of Russert. Brit Humes stated this on his program last eveining, This is surely a mistrial issue, but it will never happen

[Doc91678]

If they were asking questions like that, it is very disturbing that they would convict Libby. I think the jury should be investigated. In my opinion the jury was tainted and a mistrial should have been called. Big mistake on the part of the defense. Hope it hasn't hurt the appeal.

[juliej]

I like what Fred Thomson said last night "This is a travesty . . . FitzGerald likes to be flattered by the press."

[juliej]

This "fall guy" stuff is such nonsense: there was no underlying crime committed. Armitage "outed" Plame and then Plame and the disgusting Joe Wilson posed for photos in Vanity Fair - some "undercover" agent! Fitzzy let the press play him and he fell for the bait. He is a fool.

[juliej]

I'm telling you: the guy reeks! Enjoy your day in the sun, Fitzzy, until the Dems out you!

[Enchante]

Oh, yes, it's more that a little bit "interesting" that this so-talkative juror Denis Collins found his way so quickly to the Puffington Post..... (I wonder what posting names Denis Collins uses for DU and Daily Kos??) .... what are the chances that he never read it before the verdict and shared none of its political leanings, yet within hours of the verdict he finds his way to publishing his lengthy account of the jury's deliberations there?? answer: very slim to absolutely none

btw, here's something disturbing on the raging BDS that's welcomed at the Puffington Post:

---

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/weblog.php

Smiley's Left-Wing Hate Speech

Pulitzer Prize winning author Jane Smiley is afflicted with a severe case of Bush Derangement Syndrome; as we reported in 2005, in an article for Salon.com she called for the entire Bush administration to be summarily executed. Here’s what she wrote:

Gary Kamiya writes, “In a just world, Bush, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Feith and their underlings would be standing before a Senate committee investigating their catastrophic failures, and Packer’s book would be Exhibit A.” No. In a just world, these people would be taken out and shot.

And now the ranting writer has found a home at the hate site that specializes in these kinds of sentiments, the Huffington Post. Noel Sheppard pulls some deranged quotes from this representative of the Democrat base.

What we notice among conservatives like Coulter, Cheney, Bush, and some Christian groups is that “equality” means nothing—they feel victimized if they are not dominant and if challenges to their dominance are not suppressed. Bush and Cheney want unfettered power; Coulter wants to incite explosions, murders, and hate-crimes. Any attempt on the part of anyone to diminish their power in any way they perceive as an attack on all of their power. This is what makes them dangerous, in the same way that killers and abusers are especially dangerous when they are challenged by their potential victims. ...

As their supporters desert them and they come to feel more and more endangered, the question becomes one of containment. We have all noticed that Bush and Cheney are more dangerous. Quietly subverting them has become a Pentagon project; whether it can be done is an open question, given that they still have a core of true believers.

Fortunately, Coulter doesn’t yet have her finger on the red button, but looking at her, you can begin to understand some of the female crazies we have known—Madame Mao, Imelda Marcos. The best thing about them—maybe the only good thing—is that as they become increasingly ridiculous and frightening, they demonstrate for all to see that they are exactly the sort of persons our society needs to innoculate itself against.

Someone who has called for the entire US government to be executed is complaining that Ann Coulter incites “explosions, murders, and hate crimes.” Absolutely par for the nutroots course.

There is a bad, mean-spirited, ugly craziness loose in this country.

[Purrcival]

BTW, I corrected my post to read "did not prove", rather than "proved", in post 202.

Libby's attorney made a tactical error in his opening statement by trying to distance Libby from the Bush admin and making him look like an administration scapegoat. This only served to bolster Fitzfong's contention that there was an administration conspiracy against Wilson/Plame, when none ever existed in the first place.

[lepton]

Misleading about what? What about Martha Stewart and Clinton?

In Martha Stewart's case, if she did what she was accused of, it would still be a crime - there just wasn't enough evidence. In Clinton's case, he was being sued and the matter at hand (whether he used his position to reward or punish others based upon whether they would have sexual relations with him) had directly to do with the subject of the suit.

In this case, even if Libby did everything he was accused of, it wouldn't be a crime, and this was known from the beginning.