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."

[Unam Sanctam]

How could Libby be the fall guy? It was Fitzpatrick who decided who to prosecute. He could have gone after Rove, Cheney or Armitage if he wanted.

[chesley]

Sounds like a good idea from a pragmatic point of view. But are we Democrats that we hang people out to dry for political purposes?? Not me!

Free the Fitzgerald One!!!

[Enduring Freedom]

the bush administration

giving a pass to berger, jefferson, etc. and then caving into this sham prosecution

unbelievably pathetic wimps

[chesley]

Absolutely. Jurors shouldn't have political motives.

[chesley]

Guess they were cleverer than Libby. After all Fitz didn't have a case on an actual crime.

By the way, did you know "Fitz" practically means "bastard"

From www.dictionary.com

View results from: Dictionary | Thesaurus | Encyclopedia | All Reference | the Web

Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source
fitz

Anglo-Fr. fitz, from O.Fr. fils, from L. filius "son of" (see filial); used regularly in official rolls and hence the first element of many modern surnames; in later times used of illegitimate issue of royalty.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
On-line Medical Dictionary - Cite This Source
fitz

fitz: in CancerWEB's On-line Medical Dictionary

On-line Medical Dictionary, © 1997-98 Academic Medical Publishing & CancerWEB
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source
Fitz

\Fitz\, n. [OF. fils, filz, fiz, son, F. fils, L. filius. See Filial.] A son; -- used in compound names, to indicate paternity, esp. of the illegitimate sons of kings and princes of the blood; as, Fitzroy, the son of the king; Fitzclarence, the son of the duke of Clarence.

[colorado tanker]

How could Wells have allowed that guy on the jury? A WashPost reporter who has written about "spies"??? Did he run out of challenges?

[misterrob]

Yes, there was. At the time there was an investigation to see if someone intentially revealed someone's identity. When you are called in front of investigators you tell the truth or you say, "I don't recall with 100% certainty". Don't throw up smoke and mirrors.

Hey, this was a weak case and one that shouldn't have gone far but Fitz was able to prove that in the investigation of a non-crime that Libby actually commited one.

Go figure...

[Steve_Seattle]

This guy is providing fuel for an appeal. He's saying - in effect - that Fitz so prejudiced the jury with his opening and closing statements that they lost sight of what the actual charges were - LIBBY'S alleged perjury - and were of one mind that the real crime was SOMETHING ELSE - the "outing" of Plame, alleged lying about the war, retaliation against critics, or whatever.

[Chaguito]

If they knew he was just the fall guy, why did he get convicted then? For that matter, if this was Libby's trial, what led them to want Rove, et al's skin?

[jveritas]

Does he have to appeal in the same district? I heard that the D.C circuit court of appeal has a majority of strict constitutionalist judges, can he appeal to them?

[jveritas]

I doubt very much that the President will agree on this, he will simply tell traitor Reid that the President does not have to listen to anyone living soul when it comes to pardoning anyone.

[Ramius]

Sure, he could have said he didn't recall. But he didn't. He tried to answer questions, and he remembered something differently than a reporter remembered it. There's no need to pretend that a crime was actually committed just because there was a conviction.

After listening to that juror this morning it is clear that the only thing they thought him guilty of was being in the Bush administration. It wouldn't have mattered what his defense was. He was guilty before the trial started in their eyes.

[omega4179]

Is this grounds for a mistrial? they had biased Libtards stacked on the jury not a trial of Libbys PEERS.

[Steve_Seattle]

"This is the crux of the situation. Libby's lawyers tried to sell the jury on his being busy and having a bad memory and they wouldn't bite on it. Frankly, he deserved to lose this case based on that approach."

Then why was the jury so impressed with Russert, who couldn't remember writing a letter to a TV station defending his performance as a debate moderator, who couldn't remember an appearance on the Today show and the Imus show, who couldn't remember grand jury rules that he'd discussed on national television, who couldn't remember his "Santa Claus" comments? Go back and look at the prosecution's exhibits - these were very brief conversations, scraps of paper with almost illegible scrawls, fragmentary memos - NOT memorable stuff. And reams of this stuff passed by Libby every day. I've worked around big-shot executive types, and half of what you tell them bounces right off, never sinks in.

And remember how Russert claimed when he saw the Novak story he knew it was "huge" that Wilson's wife was mentioned? I'm convinced he's wrong about that, that it didn't become "huge" in his mind till days later when Wilson et al concocted the "outing" theory. Novak thought it was mildly interesting, but not "huge."

So I think that Libby did originally hear about Plame from Cheney et al, but forgot about it because it was a relatively minor issue at the time, and only became "huge" later on WHEN HE BEGAN TO DISCUSS IT WITH REPORTERS WHO WERE ADVANCING THE "OUTING" THEORY. THEN he would start to remember it better.

[rightinthemiddle]

Denis won't care.

[chesley]

I don't know. I would hope so, but all my life I have successfully avoided lawyers, except when I bought a house. I don't know what kind of mess they can make, or straighten out.

[Steve_Seattle]

"This was a huge issue for the WH at the time and they were going into damage control mode."

And is there something wrong with that? Wouldn't any administration attempt to present its case and counter what it saw as false information? And look at the government's evidence. Yes, there are memos and talking points relating to Wilson, but THEY DO NOT EMPHASIZE VALERIE PLAME, contrary to Fitz's claims. The White House was in catch up mode, not attack mode. It was WILSON and the media who were in attack mode. The WH was asking, Who is Wilson? Who sent him? What is this report he's talking about? Why didn't we see this report? What did the report say? These were legitimate questions, not a "smear campaign."

[Steve_Seattle]

"And Libby's lawyer's kept silent like good attorneys? hehehehe"

They kept silent long enough for Fitz to say that stuff, but at the end Jeffress objected, so that's in the record. And the judge told the jury to disregard that conspiracy stuff, but clearly they did not disregard it, as evidenced by the blabbing of Mr. Collins. So I think there's basis for an appeal here.

[PA-RIVER]

In their warped world, there was a crime because they wish for one, yet no one was prosecuted for this underlying crime.

The facts be dammed, they got their scalp. The Juror and all of his Rat friends now have to justify their wrath.

[misterrob]

I never said there was anything wrong with it. However, the way they went about it was absolutely horrible.