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.
My guess is that he had all of that set up prior to the verdict...he just had to make a phone call to let them know what day it was going to be read.
This smacks of John Grisham's "The Runaway Jury".
They couldn't find any registered Republicans in Washington DC. Libby should have asked for a change of venue based on that fact alone. Should have asked to have the trial in Texas.
I realize they only have so many objections. But allowing Tim Russert's neighbor?! I'll just have to assume they used all their objections by the time this guy came along.
Yeah...all three of them.
Works for me. One person who saw through Fitzfong et al could have hung the jury.
You're right. This juror used to work for Bob Woodward. He was an assistant to Woodward. The Judge told the jurors they didn't have to speak to the press so they send out their "Press Secretary" to tell us how it took them 10 days to convict a man who was obviously not guilty of anything. It took them 10 days to build up a case against Libby, when it took only 15 minuts to realize that there was more than reasonable doubt to find him not guilty. What a travesty of justice. The "Special Prosecutor" comes out and says "we will not stand for purjury". Well, where was he during the Clinton Administration? Where was this guy when Sandy Burger was stealing from the US Government?
What really makes me mad is that they think the people of this country are so stupid as to believe anything they say.
This is the extent of contempt with which they hold us.
This trial should have been held in Australia. (Kangaroo court).
I'm guessing they thought a reporter would know how slimy reporters are, and took that chance.
Though, like BillyJeff, it is likely Libby won't be a lawyer for much longer.
Did anyone ever consider this reporter to be a plant by the DNC? This is a Washington Court Room.
"And none either employed by or financially dependent on government money. "
Or any media company, radio/TV/Newspaper, etc. Political trials are just too volatile and emotional.
What an incredibly good argument for a change of venue.
I wonder how a jury in, say, Roanoke, VA would have decided this case...
They don't care. CNN will carry their lies for them, no problem.
And he runs straight to HuffPost. This guy clearly strongarmed the jury. There was a reason he rushed to the microphones. He wanted to set the story to intimidate the rest of the jurors into parrotting that story.
I want to know why he was not excluded. If he lied or omitted key facts (the Libby team shouldn't have needed a preemptory challenge to exclude him) in order to get on the jury, the judge himself could declare a mistrial.
I am shocked. I figured he'd be a Greenie.
In fact, I am of the belief that the judge should have dismissed this juror from the pool and that maybe Wells is betting that his not doing this is a good basis for appeal.
OMG! Our system is so badly broken that these people are so BRAZEN about breaking the system!!! Was Libby's attorney Wells in on it??? I know he's a Democrat....this is a NIGHTMARE!
I don't believe anything this guy says about the jury room. I think he was characterizing the deliberations in advance.
Wells is an INCOMPETENT BOOB!!!
It could be that they anticipated using their limit. I would have.
There ya go. Motive.
(a) How do you know? Remember: DC jury
(b) What if they had used over 90% of their challenges? They had three jurors to go, plus alternates.
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.