Libby Decision a Gross Legal Travesty

This jury should be nullified simply based on their public statements. It also should be nullified because of the relationship between juror Denis Collins and one of the main witnesses against Libby, Tim Russert of NBC news. Collins is a neighbor and friend of Tim Russert, as well as a former columnist for the Washington Post the very Left-wing newspaper and source of this article.

Libby 'Pilloried' For Leak, Panel Members Believed

By Amy Goldstein and Elizabeth Williamson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, March 7, 2007; Page A08

The jurors who huddled around two pushed-together conference tables for 10 days, meticulously filling 34 pages of facts from the trial on a large flip chart, believed that Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff had been "pilloried" for a CIA leak that other top White House aides had committed along with him, according to one member of the panel.

Still, the juror said yesterday, the jury concluded that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby had lied to FBI agents and a federal grand jury that investigated the leak. Sifting through mounds of evidence convinced the panel that Libby's memory of conversations with colleagues and journalists was not as faulty as the defense contended.

"We're not saying that we didn't think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of," said the juror, Denis Collins. "But it seemed like he was . . . the fall guy."

Collins, an author and ex-Washington Post reporter, was the only one of the seven women and four men on the jury to provide an inside glimpse into the method and thought process that the panel used to find Cheney's former top aide guilty of four felony counts.

How is it justice when the jury reveals that they were looking for revenge against Vice-President Dick Cheney and Karl Rove?

Former Washington Post columnist Denis Collins stated that members of the jury kept asking:

"We gotta tell you, we, the jury, had sympathy for Mr. Libby. We think he was the fall guy. A lot of jurors are saying, ‘What are we doing with this guy? Where's Rove? Where's Cheney?"

Collins also mentioned Joe Wilson's New York Times article as a source of truth, you know, the article which has been repeatedly proven to be false.

This whole thing has been what one might call a "revenge killing." The Left has been unable to touch President Bush, Vice-President Cheney and Karl Rove, so they trumped up this case in an attempt to get at them.

Questionable Libby jurors (from NYT) include the following...

M - Juror number 1-Web architect GSA[Iraq] “It’s a very troubling
situation that the country is in.”

M - Juror number
2-Investment banker and PhD economist worked at Council of Economic Advisers for a year in the Clinton administration.

M -
Juror number 3-retired math teacher-“I don’t always agree with his
[President Bush] Iraq policy…I would have gone in with 500,000
troops”

M - Juror number 4-Former Washington Post
reporter-[On Iraq] “I’m very skeptical about everything I hear until
I see it backed up.” once worked for Post editor Bob Woodward and was a neighbor
of NBC reporter Tim Russert,

F - Juror number
6-Department of Health and Human Services worker-Said she was “not
particularly impressed with Vice President Dick
Cheney.”

F – Juror number 9-Administrator at senior
services agency-[On Iraq] “I think Bush was not
candid.”

F – Juror number 11-Retired nonprofit
administrator formerly in the Air Force-[On Iraq] "I don’t think
they have been truthful or forthright about the real reasons for
engaging."

The judge, Reggie Walton, refused to allow Libby's lawyers to impeach Russert's testimony by introducing evidence that he too had publicly lied on his television show, stating that he was defending the first amendment, while he given testimony to the FBI.

The judge also disallowed a statement from the government defending Libby's memory lapse, saying that Libby had:

“worked long hours, received daily intelligence briefings and attended many meetings concerning important matters of national security.”

To my mind, a judge should never be allowed to prejudice a defendants case simply because he is angry at council. The goal of a court is to seek the truth, not to stroke the judges ego. Punishment at some offense by a defendant's legal team should be suffered by the legal team, following the trial.

If this decision isn't overturned, it won't be for a lack of reason.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below