March 07, 2007

Four Out of Five Ain't Good

My take on the Libby verdict is in today's AmSpec.

Posted by John Tabin at March 7, 2007 03:03 AM

I thought it interesting that one of the jurors openly lamented not being able to try someone higher up in the pecking order. And I thought one was a journalist who wrote anti administration columns. Bush should pardon him; it is hard to see Democrats having the nerve to object considering Clinton, but of cause Reid already has.


Posted by: da at March 7, 2007 06:56 AM

It is time to stop this crap of judges protecting the jury from the world. Jurys should hear everything, and the judge can discuss relevance, but Libby's judge directed the verdict by silencing the defense.

Posted by: Walter E Wallis at March 7, 2007 08:45 PM

John- Nice summation. Very informative. In regard to Tim Russert saying, under oath, that he wasn't aware one couldn't take a lawyer with him when offering sworn testimony to a grand jury (and then,Libby's defense team locates three instances of Russert acknowledging that he knew a lawyer couldn't be present) wouldn't Russert be open to a perjury charge, and perhaps an obsruction of justice charge?

Posted by: gordon at March 8, 2007 12:57 PM

gordon: It's conceivable that Russert would be open to a perjury charge, but it's very unlikely; the lawyers-at-grand-juries statement is so trivial it's hard to see how a prosecutor would argue that it was anything but forgetfulness (the witness stand can rattle the nerves, after all). As for obstruction, almost certainly not; Russert's confusion said on the stand didn't meaningfully delay Fitzgerald's investigation.

Posted by: John Tabin at March 8, 2007 04:50 PM

It is incomprehensible why after Fitzgerald knew that Armitage was the "leaker" he still proceeded with a very marginal case.

He obviously was only motivated by politics. It is shameful beyond belief.

a jury in a less left wing area would never have convicted

Posted by: da at March 11, 2007 05:45 PM