Posted on 03/06/2007 3:06:48 PM PST by bw17
The link to Hoagland's article is here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/02/AR2005110202277_pf.html
who needs a CIA mole when you have a former WaPo reporter?
Same difference
Yup. The liberal media got a mole on the jury.
How the heck did Libby's attorney's let that happen?
bump
What about the other 10 people who voted guilty?
Look under your bed before you tuck in tonight.
The defence had the opportunity to strike the reporter with a peremptory challenge. They didn't do so. Remember, this trial was in DC -- a place with a somewhat unusual jury pool.
What about them? It took 10 days to decide if Libby was telling the truth or not?
It was a hung jury that got fed up with arguing about something so stupid. What have the other jurors said about the trial? The only thing that I can find is what Denis Collins had to say. And he couldn't form two sentences in a row about the verdict without mentioning Rove and Cheney.
The mole could have swayed them.
"Look under your bed before you tuck in tonight."
That's rich coming from someone with a tag line about six bullets hitting Lennon and all of them missing Ono.
How did this guy get on the jury? Why didn't Libby use a challenge to keep him off?
Why didn't they strike the reporter? That's insane. They knew that all of the key witnesses would be reporters.
Would Fitzgerald have allowed a juror who served in a Republican presidential administration? Same difference.
...and series.
I agree it smells but it was his lawyer's job was to vet Collins. That's one of the things for which he was being paid his $800/hour.
MISTRIAL.
Was Libby's lawyer appointed?
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.