Replies

Are you willing to admit that this verdict was a travesty of justice?

Nope.

They nailed Libby because they couldn't nail Rove and Cheney.

That's not what I got from the full statement. They didn't convict him because they couldn't get Rove or Cheney; they wondered why Rove and Cheney didn't face trial either. Doubtless the judge instructed them that they were to consider Libby's guilt alone.

Yet they deliberated over this issue.

I definitely didn't get that from the statement.

Libby lost because they didn't believe the "I forgot" defense. I'd probably have convicted too.

Denis Collins said that "a number of times" they asked themselves, "what is HE doing here? Where is Rove and all these other guys....I'm not saying we didn't think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of. It seemed like he was, as Mr. Wells [his lawyer] put it, he was the fall guy."

"It seemed like he was [guilty]". Read that line again jude. "Seemed like he was" is not beyond a reasonable doubt. Hell, its not even probable. It is nothing more than a definite maybe.

If it only "seemed like he was guilty" then the jury had a duty to aquit. But obviously they had an agenda. They wanted their pound of flesh so they took it out of Libby. Maybe he was guilty. It seemed like it. But they needed to extract punishment from this administration and Libby was the only one they could take a shot at. They wanted Rove, but all they got was Libby.

Excuse me while I go and throw up.