Posted on 03/06/2007 8:34:59 AM PST by Dog
All of these verdicts are based on crimes that Scooter is alleged to have committed himself -- obstruction of justice, perjury, etc. There is nothing that legally can be tied to VP Cheney or anyone else -- because there was no substantive case at all.
While Bill Clinton... true perjurer and obstructionist, as well as rapist, makes millions selling out his country. Didn't he get his law license back recently.
While Berger, who got off will have his security clearance back in time for Hill 08... perjurer, obstructionist, huge national security info (shredded, out of history btw), walks.
The only upside you can find is the journalists on the stand... I hope Joe, Val and Fitz can be subpeonaed as well, for the appeal.
Then we'll see the misconduct and even though 8 out of 9 of Fitz's witnesses said Libby didn't tell them or they don't remember (note, the only one who said he did was Ari btw... so don't look for a pardon for sure, after all, no one stepped in from the beginning... they let Libby swing).
When the jury asked what reasonable doubt was... that should have been a clue, after all they've heard.
This is a travesty of justice. But unfortunately our justice system has become a travesty.
I just heard Dennis Prager compare Fitzgerald to Nifong and indicated that they are basically cut from the same cloth.
Anyone who is not frightened by this verdict has no sense of justice and no sense of history.
Juries are woefully uninformed in their rights to give a proper verdict in spite of what a judge instructs.
The Minneapolis Star and Tribune in a news paper article appearing in its November 30th 1984 edition, entitled: "What judges don't tell the juries" stated:A well informed juror will always be excluded from serving on a jury these days."At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the jury's role as defense against political oppression was unquestioned in American jurisprudence. This nation survived until the 1850's when prosecutions under the Fugitive Slave Act were largely unsuccessful because juries refused to convict."
"Then judges began to erode the institution of free juries, leading to the absurd compromise that is the current state of the law. While our courts uniformly state juries have the power to return a verdict of not guilty whatever the facts, they routinely tell the jurors the opposite."
"Further, the courts will not allow the defendants or their counsel to inform the jurors of their true power. A lawyer who made...Hamilton's argument would face professional discipline and charges of contempt of court."
"By what logic should juries have the power to acquit a defendant but no right to know about the power? The court decisions that have suppressed the notion of jury nullification cannot resolve this paradox."
"More than logic has suffered. As originally conceived, juries were to be a kind of safety valve, a way to soften the bureaucratic rigidity of the judicial system by introducing the common sense of the community. If they are to function effectively as the 'conscience of the community,' jurors must be told that they have the power and the right to say no to a prosecution in order to achieve a greater good. To cut jurors off from this information is to undermine one of our most important institutions."
"Perhaps the community should educate itself. Then Citizens called for jury duty could teach the judge a needed lesson in civics." (emphasis mine)
"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."
- John Jay, 1st Chief Justice
- United States supreme Court, 1789
"The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided."
- Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice
- U.S. supreme Court, 1941
"The pages of history shine on instance of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge..."
- U.S.vs Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 113, 1139, (1972)
Good, but scary, question. This may set off a political landslide if Dirty Harry's comment is any sign. Of course, now we have a new federal crime called: Lying to MSM reporters.
The Left does not fear Cheney as a candidate. He would stand even less a chance than Hunter. Cheney is not well-liked by the vast majority of the populace.
I'm sure it has been said, but you didn't include the biggest liar of all, Bill Clinton.
But Fitz's hope is that now that he has Libby's 'Nads in a sling, he'll start singing like a canary on Cheney to get a lighter sentence.
It's all about the truth as they need it to be to get the power back.
I really am beginning to despise some people in this country.......HOWEVER, Libby was on the WRONG side in the Marc Rich fiasco, so maybe payback IS a bitch.
I'm no lawyer, but lawyers are smart enough to put people like this on the stand under other auspices, even when a judge says certain things are "off limits." If nothing else, I would think they could be called as rebuttal witnesses to Russert or one of the others who said they "heard it" from Libby. But if the issue is that Libby said, flatly, he did not TALK to Russert, and they proved he did, he's in heap big trouble.
No. :)
They tolerated CLINTON lying under oath.
Fitzi is a POS scumbag. The man is lower than Joe McCarthy. Libby's real crime is serving a Republican administration.
How many OTHER people knew before Libby's "leak" and lied during this trial only to "correct" themselves when their lies were exposed? Oh wait, we don't really care about justice or prosecuting those who offer confusing testimony, do we Fitzi?
Jury nullification is only used in the OJ and BJ trials. All others are dangerous crim'nals who deserve to be locked up. But OJ and Bubba were being persecuted because they were "black".
What we have here is a faux investigation until someone possibly fell foul of bad laws or laws used not for their intended purpose.
damn
Well, that didn't take long... considering they complained they couldn't get their book published recently.
Fitz seems to fancy himself as a modern day Elliot Ness.
If that's the case, he did a piss-poor job. Napolitano is implying as much, too. I think Libby is toast, and I don't think Bush will pardon him.
Mrs. Bill Clinton had such a hard time remembering stuff when she was on the stand in her trial too. Yet she thinks we can trust her to remember things as Co-President again.
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.