Posted on 03/06/2007 10:58:42 AM PST by chesley
This left wing lunatic jury is too stupid to even show there extreme bias in this case. Can the defense call for annulling of the verdict because the jury just admitted that they are left wing loons seeking to damage the Bush administration? Is it legally possible? Or only an appeal is the way to go?
So the defense didn't care that the juror wrote a book called SPYING: The Secret History of History?
Am I wrong to think this should have been discussed at the time he was selected?
However, in this case, there is so much political maneuvering and prosecutorial overreach that when topped off by an activist jury- there is no way any fair people can say that justice has been served.
I would hope that Bush would pardon Libby and just take the political fallout. For goodness sake, Bush is already described as the most evil man in America by the mainstream press, what more hit can his reputation take?
This is nothing more or less than an admission that they couldnt get Cheney of George Bush so they hung Libby instead.
Mother Sheehan? Isn't she still Chavez' biatch?
In the big picture, we will be safer in a country where perjury is NOT permissible.
Yeah, this guy really says it all.
Grounds for a Mistrial.
This really should be in the breaking news section. The jury admission that they are left wing loons seeking to indict the Bush administration is just incredible.
well, Harry, I guess that means you won't be getting one either.
I hope the appeal succeeds. Bush should pardon him, but I am not sure that he will. That is just a feeling I have had.
The kind of stuff that Fitzfong's office and every govt agency in Washington leaks to the press all the time.
So, he might have an appeal option, but it probably lands him with liberal judges.
"We asked ourselves, why is OJ here? Where are the Columbian Drug Dealers?"
I don't originate threads often enough, I guess. This seemed right to me, but if it gets moved, that's fine, too.
The judge manipulated the evidence to create this impression. He refused to allow important impeachment evidence against Russert as well as the Andrea Mitchell tape which would have shown that Russert could very well have known that Natasha Plamakovavich worked at the CIA long before he claims he did.
My impression is that he actually may have barred these two pieces of evidence because he was mad that Libby wasn't taking the stand.
I've always had success when I ran my own defense. You're paying the bill and should have a say in how things are going to be run. For Libby, who is a lawyer, to have allowed his lawyers to run such a miserable case is as much his fault as his lawyer's.
Now the guy can spend some of his Marc Rich money on appeals...
What would have been the point? As we know, there was nothing for him to BS the investigators about. There was nothing for him to gain in any of this, nor anything to hide.
Well, me too!! I'm not a Republican, by the way. I'm an independent conservative with libertarian leanings. I just vote Republican as the lesser of two evils.
But most of 'em (the leaders) are spineless wimps. No questions there.
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.