Libby DID have a LAWYER... right??? was this POS sleeping during jury selection or is he just plain stooopid???
Posted on 03/07/2007 7:40:14 AM PST by txradioguy
Libby DID have a LAWYER... right??? was this POS sleeping during jury selection or is he just plain stooopid???
Nice catch. Are we allowed to post excerpts from Slate?
Bush won't pardon Libby. It is now time for a Demonrat government as agrred by the two political parties. The power structure manipulates the American public by whipsawing them with "political issues." I truly believed as many of you did for a long time there was a difference between the two but it is only an illusion. Remember, "divide an conquer."
Why have none of the demonrat crimes of the Clinton administration been prosecuted by the Repulsivecan administration?
The past eight years have taught me to see things differently now. Why are the Clintons and Bushes such good friends?
There is no difference between the two other than what they want us to believe. It makes us easier to manipulate. THE CONTEST is mostly controlled and staged by by the power elite of this and other countries. I used to believe - but no longer. A Rat is a rat regardless of his color.
The Constitution is dead; killed by those that can't stand the light. Why, in a war to free ourselves of terror by supposedly taking democracy to those countries harboring terrorist, has our own government stripped more of our rights and freedoms from us?
Call me anything you want. I know what is in my heart. I grew up loving this country with a reverence for the Constitution.
I TRULY BELIEVE IT IS TIME TO START AGAIN; TO TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY.
Realistically though, I know in my heart that the type of people required to do this no longer exist. They all have "too much to lose" to pledge their fortunes and lives.
Pity.
Pardon me. I gotta get myself a beer and sit down in front of the boob tube and get a little dumber.
I'd sure like to see what he said on his jury application. This whole thing stinks to high heaven.
Bingo. Put Mitchell on to impeach Russert, then put Russert back under cross.
Justoneminute.com quoting Newsmax:
Senior NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell said Wednesday morning that she "messed up" when she told an interviewer in 2003 that Valerie Plame's CIA identity was "widely known."MITCHELL: I know the question now. I've gone back and reread it. And I frankly - I thought - I think that I thought he was asking about, did I know there was an envoy. But I know that I didn't know about Joe Wilson's wife until after the [Novak] column. Because when the column came out I went in to my producer and said - "Look at this. How the heck did we not know that?"
And at the same time we were talking with [Tim] Russert and everyone else. You know - this is a different part of the story that we didn't know about.
So clearly back in Oct. of '03, I screwed it up.
IMUS: Well, [Alan Murray's] question seems plain. "Do we have any idea how widely known it was in Washington that Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. And you said that his wife worked . . .
MITCHELL: When you look at my answer, I said: "It was widely known - and we were trying to track down who among the foreign community was the envoy to Niger." So far, so good. Okay? [Quoting herself again.] "So some of us began to pick up on that. But frankly I wasn't aware of her actual role at the CIA and the fact the she had a covert role involving weapons of mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it.
IMUS: Well, that part is clear.
MITCHELL: That's clear. So, what's not clear is that I didn't know about her role at the CIA until Bob Novak wrote it. And I obviously got it muddled.
IMUS: Well, what this suggests to me is that, you knew she worked at the CIA but you didn't know what she did there.
MITCHELL: Yes, but that's not . . .
IMUS: Is that fair? Did you know that?
MITCHELL: I didn't.
IMUS: Well, then - why did you say you did, Andrea?
MITCHELL: Because, I messed up.
IMUS: Oh.
MITCHELL: I think that I was confused about the timeline. We weren't all as focused on the timeline then as we really are now. And I think I just was confused.
IMUS: Did you ever have a discussion with Russert about it?
MITCHELL: Sure, after the fact.
IMUS: Oh.
I don't know if we can post excerpts or not from Slate. I think I did in later posts. Ha...they could be deleted by now.
Do you really think a judge would allow it to be moved?
Well I just can't figure this. I have served on three criminal juries in TX in my lifetime. Each time we were given a lengthy paper to fill out asking numerous questions, even what our hobbies were. The judge excused anyone who knew the lawyers, defendent or anyone connected with the case. That was before any questioning took place. The judge instructed anyone who recognized someone in the case to ask to be excused. This was just beyond the pale.
I didn't see any limitations on Slate in "FR Excerpt and Link or Deny" list, so I guess it's OK, or can check with Admin.
There is not that much interesting about him in the Slate, it's what he said on behalf of entire jury AFTER the trial, that shows inordinate bias and "misunderstanding" of who was on trial and on what charge - "Where is Rove and all these other guys?"
Rove and all the "other guys" were not on trial, they were not even witnesses in the trial - if he was treating the trial as a "political show trial" and wanted to see Cheney and Bush on the stand - if this is not the grounds for successful appeal, I don't know what is.
They keep giving their "game" away - keep up keeping up.
Thanks, Where did you find the Except or Deny list?
His huffington post 7 page writeup was interesting, to say the least.
Sooooo, you're an ATTORNEY!!! Should have known...you seem mean.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1111944/posts
I keep a link in browsers' Favorites/Bookmarks.
Thank you so much. Bookmarked it myself now.
Libby was not an elected official.
Assuming your suggestion was constitutional, would you be willing to sit on a jury for a month or so in DC because no one on the government payroll was able to do so?
I read that the defense had 10 strikes, no questions asked, and then 2 more if needed. Perhaps they had used their strikes up before this guy came along, or maybe he misrepresented himself in the beginning.
But they WERE planning on going after a big fish. However, the defense snatched it away from them.
I used to think there were people on this forum who knew less then you do about our judicial system.
I'm a writer, BTW, and I can't believe a lawyer doesn't know the difference between then and than.
Hmmm, no comment yet.
Rainy - there is a difference between peremptory strikes and challenges for cause. Peremptory strikes can be used for any reason - or no reason at all. A challenge for cause is based upon legal cause. Knowing parties or witnesses such that your opinion of their testimony may be bolstered, or undermined, can be such legal cause. There is no numerical limit on challenges for cause.
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.