Posted on 03/07/2007 7:40:14 AM PST by txradioguy
NEW YORK Denis Collins, the juror in the Libby/CIA leak case who delivered a post-verdict commentary for the press, spent about a decade at The Washington Post. Today, after a night on cable TV shows, he re-appears with a massive recounting of his experience at the Huffington Post blog.
His story is billed as "INSIDE THE JURY ROOM: WHAT THE JURY THOUGHT, DAY BY DAY, WITNESS BY WITNESS, AT THE SCOOTER LIBBY TRIAL" by Denis Collins, Juror #9. It calls it "unedited" impressions, memories and facts. Other jurors' names are changed.
The New York Times today reports that he is a registered Democrat. He recalls that he revealed when considered for the jury that he had worked with Bob Woodward for three or four years and also with the Post's Walter Pincus, another witness at the trial. Until a year ago, Tim Russert was a neighbor and he even attended backyard barbeques at Russert's place. But attorneys at both tables merely offered "ain't this a small town" grins, he relates.
He adds that he went to grade school with the Times' Maureen Dowd, who allegedly had a crush on Collins' brother.
One of the lawyers asked him the subject of his 2005 book. "You wrote about the CIA?" Collins said yes, which along with his reporting connections amounted to the "perfect storm." He comments: "Yet here I am," on the CIA leak case jury.
You just hit the bullseye...center mass.
Agree. And none either employed by or financially dependent on government money. (That BTW would eliminate nearly everyone within the DC Beltway and for some distance beyond.)
I'm just not convinced of this. If they could end up with 10 white jurors in a city that is overwhelmingly minority, I have to suspect that they could have found some of the city's nonliberals.
You've got to realize, jury selection is very limited in Federal Courts. Generally Judges get to ask the questions and the amount of peremptory strikes is quite limited. Who knows what kind of juror was next in line to get stuck with if this guy had been stricken. Given a D.C. jury pool it is literally a situation where you have to decide on the best of the worst. The deck was stacked from the beginning. It was a reverse O.J.
If I were his lawyer...that's the motion I'd file right after my notification to the court of my intention to appeal this ruling.
Then again, Libby wasn't an elected official. Need to clarify my prior statement to include immediate staff of nationally elected officials.
> (What the hell was Libby's defene team thinking?)
Maybe they wanted grounds for appeal in case of a guilty verdict?
This guy was Juror #9 -- they couldn't have used up all the objections as they were considering Juror #9. It was clear from the interview yesterday that this guy was Fitz's representative and advocate in the jury room. He walked these jurors through a meticulous recounting of all of the "evidence" that supported Libby's conviction -- Post-It Notes tied to every witness... But let's ignore all the mis-remembering and bad memories of the many jurors. And let's accept Fitz's concluding arguments that made this trial all about getting Cheney and Bush -- making statements that were not supported by any evidence brought into the trial. And the Judge (a Bush Appointee!) allowing all of this to happen and showing outrage when Libby wasn't put on the stand!
Look up "Show-Trial" in websters and the Libby Trial will start playing on You-Tube.
Collin's remarks after the trial pretty much told the story. If he and the other jurors were wondering whey Cheney and Rove weren't on trial as Collins post-trial remarks indicated, they should never have been jury members. His remarks revealed that even though they thought Libby was innocent, they were going to convict some member of the Bush admin. Some fair trial, huh? Libby never had a chance.
AFAIK the general practice in all jurisdictions is that each side can challenge a certain number of potential jurors -- some for cause and (I think) fewer without stating a reason. There is a limit, however -- they can't just go on challenging jurors forever! Maybe they had used their limit.
Not from what I've seen from living up here. Yes the city is overwhemingly minority...but what is even more overwhemling is that within D.C. proper...it's almost 100% liberal...this is the same place where a judge told two men that they "have no right to own firearms"...if you want to find any conservatives in this area...you probably have to head down to at least Fairfax Country where I live.
Sounds to me like Libby was convicted for a crime that he was not tried for.
He might have been juror #9 during the trial...but he could have been #309 during the selection process.
If the guy's notes even mention the that Valerie Plame was a covert agent, the case will be retried.
Bingo. The drumbeat at DU is now starting for further investigation into the forgeries that started this whole thing and their speculation about Cheney's possible connection to them. I say bring it on. Wilson and Vincent Cannistraro both are on the record saying they had seen the documents before they possibly could have. If we can get to the bottom of this, we can prove what we have suspected all along...that this was an attempted coup by rogue agents and ex-agents at the CIA.
HOWEVER, Libby did recite false testimony to the investigating FBI agents prior to Fitzfool becoming the SP. Then Libby repeated and compounded the false statements to the grand jury when he only needed to claim he had trouble recalling the exact conversations. It is likely that Libby was instructed to discuss the Wilsons with reporters, because Wilson was lying about the administration and about the report he gave regarding yellow cake ... and Plame was no longer a protected agent.
The presidential pardon should be issued because this was obviously a witch hunt seeking to smear the administration.
Fitzfool is the villain most prominent in this democrat scheme so Libby really is a scapegoat, but for the democrats' scheme to get the Bush administration. The very visible lies now being spittled out by the democrats and their talking points media whores proves the scheme was/is a real assault and that Libby was their raw meat.
If you are going to base much of your defense on impeaching Russert, then I'd rather have the most liberal of libs on the jury than one of Russert's buddies.
This guy Collns was a busy beaver yesterday:
Within minutes of the reading of the verdict he had his own media fest on the street then last night he made "Larry King Live".
I bet tonight he is on Olbermann and Scarborough.
Yeah...all three of them.
An inept defence would be adequate grounds - nice plan.
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.