![]() |
|
|
|||
|
The Scooter has been found guilty on four of the five felony counts. The judge is a Reagan appointee and the prosecutor a lifetime Repugnacan.
Swiftboaters, to your skiffs. |
| Sponsored Links |
| Red Cross - Donate Today Save the Rainforest |
|
||||
|
A total miscarriage of justice and it WILL be appealed. This jury was confused and did NOT even understand the charges; nor did they understand what constitutes "reasonable doubt." THOSE questions they asked will be perfect ground for an appeal. Basically, they spent 10 days TRYING HARD to find some way they could find him guilty. I said from Day One this is Washington D.C. where most, if not all, the jury members will be Democrats and that Libby could not get a fair trial there. And he obviously did not.
And please don't pull the "Republican" defense. This prosecutor is someone who wanted to JUSTIFY in some way the money he wasted on this case and that's the ONLY reason he went after Libby on something as insignificant as who he said what to whom and in what order. Fitzgerald KNEW from Day One that "NO LAW WAS BROKEN" and should have not even gone forward with this case PERIOD. That's prosecutorial misconduct, IMHO.
__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007 |
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007 |
|
||||
|
[quote="raytri";p="348614"]
Quote:
BTW, the defense just said there would be a request for a NEW TRIAL. Meaning, they are going to suggest this jury was hopelessly confused. And there is certainly evidence to support that. IF a new trial is refused, they will appeal.
__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007 |
|
||||
|
Quote:
But if Libby doesn't have enough to cut a deal with Fitzgerald, that doesn't mean that it was all a political sham. It just means that he didn't have anything worth trading -- which means evidence that Fitz thought could support a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. If the verdict is upheld, will you admit that Libby did something wrong? Quote:
__________________
Man up. |
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
| Sponsored Links |
|