SwiftVets.com Forum Index SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Libby "guilty" on four of five counts
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    SwiftVets.com Forum Index -> Geedunk & Scuttlebutt
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Schadow
Vice Admiral


Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama

PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 7:19 pm    Post subject: Libby "guilty" on four of five counts Reply with quote

Once again, a DC jury has taken revenge on the Republican administration. A jury spokesman, appearing before media, stated that they thought it "sucked" that they were trying Libby instead of Rove, Cheney, etc., but put their heads down and did what they were told.

And how about "reasonable doubt"? Most all of the witnesses in the trial exhibited memory flaws. But Libby lied.

Wikipedia on reasonable doubt (emphasis mine):

Quote:
Beyond a reasonable doubt

This is the standard required by the prosecution in most criminal cases within an adversarial system. This means that the proposition must be proven to the extent that there is no “reasonable doubt” in the mind of a reasonable person. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would be “unreasonable” to assume the falsity of the proposition. The precise meaning of words such as “reasonable” and “doubt” are usually defined within jurisprudence of the applicable country. In the United States, it is usually reversible error to instruct a jury that they should find guilt on a certain percentage of certainty (such as 90% certain). Usually, reasonable doubt is defined as any doubt which would make a reasonable person hesitate in the most important of his or her affairs.”


My suggested memo from White House Chief of Staff to all White House personnel: "Members of the press will enter the White House only under escort and only for the purpose of attending formal press briefings."

Comparing this to Sandy Berger's outrageous crime just makes me cry out for Scotty to "Beam me up!"

Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LewWaters
Admin


Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 4042
Location: Washington State

PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Old sKerry even has to chime in;

Quote:
Kerry Statement on Libby Guilty Verdict
March 6, 2007
WASHINGTON DC – Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) today offered the following statement on the CIA Leak case, which reached a verdict in Washington today.
“This verdict brings accountability at last for official deception and the politics of smear and fear,” Kerry said. “This trial revealed a no-holds barred White House attack machine aimed at anyone who stood in the way of their march to war with Iraq. It is time for President Bush to live up to his own promises and hold accountable anyone else who participated in this smear. It is also well past time for Vice President Cheney, who according to the testimony was protected by Scooter Libby’s lies, to finally acknowledge his role in this sordid episode.
“I also want to thank the jury and the prosecutor for their hard work in this case.”


John Kerry.com
_________________
Clark County Conservative
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AMOS
Senior Chief Petty Officer


Joined: 30 Jul 2004
Posts: 558
Location: IOWA

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is this BIG or what?

I'm tired.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tony54
PO2


Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Posts: 369
Location: cleveland, ohio

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

Kerry Statement on Libby Guilty Verdict
March 6, 2007
WASHINGTON DC – Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) today offered the following statement on the CIA Leak case, which reached a verdict in Washington today.
“This verdict brings accountability at last for official deception and the politics of smear and fear,” Kerry said.

Where's the accountability for deception, smear and fear you threw on our armed forces in 1971? All lies mind you, you piece of ****?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
dusty
Admiral


Joined: 27 Aug 2004
Posts: 1264
Location: East Texas

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 4:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What a farce this is. After this I think it should be evident that no justice will come out of Washington.
A total miscarriage of power.

Dusty
_________________
Left and Wrong are the opposite of Right!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GenrXr
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy


Joined: 05 Aug 2004
Posts: 1720
Location: Houston

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 2:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A jury of his peers? Hardly. My father believes our educational system has robbed jurors of basic reasoning and we should go to a 3 judge panel system, yet the judges in my opinion are too damn ignorant as well.

Sad times indeed.
_________________
"An activist is the person who cleans up the water, not the one claiming its dirty."
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to stand by and do nothing." Edmund Burke (1729-1797), Founder of Conservative Philosophy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
sixdogteam
Seaman


Joined: 06 Aug 2004
Posts: 183
Location: Upper Wabash River Valley

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 1:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

At least evil ignorant jurors could be swayed, perhaps. An evil smart three judge panel-- no way.
_________________
HHC 212th CAB MMAF RVN '70-'71
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Schadow
Vice Admiral


Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I believe that Libby was ill-served by counsel in this case. First, Libby sat in a grand jury for eight hours without counsel present, of course. Fitzpatrick wrote everything down that Libby had to say. He could have gone out and talked to his lawyer any time to get advice, but didn't.

Second, Libby was not put on the stand in trial. This is always perceived by jurors as practically a confession of guilt. (Except for OJ, of course.)

This was a "reasonable doubt" case if there ever was one. Libby's lawyer should have used every opportunity to promote reasonable doubt. All these "journalists" who testified exhibited confusion about what was said and when and Libby should have been permitted to exploit that to the fullest.

However, this case was a political trial decided by a DC jury which included a former WaPo reporter (who worked with Woodward, for God's sake!) and others who had a vendetta against anything connected with Bush or Cheney. Again, Libby's counsel failed him by not digging into the jury pool and challenging off what should have been identified as enemies.

Oh, well, Monday morning quarterbacking won't solve anything. Maybe Libby will get as light a sentence as Berger did. Rolling Eyes

Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Me#1You#10
Site Admin


Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Schadow wrote:
I believe that Libby was ill-served by counsel in this case. First, Libby sat in a grand jury for eight hours without counsel present, of course. Fitzpatrick wrote everything down that Libby had to say. He could have gone out and talked to his lawyer any time to get advice, but didn't.


Unless you're suggesting that Libby did so on the advice of counsel, I'm unsure that counsel can be faulted for this.

Quote:
However, this case was a political trial decided by a DC jury which included a former WaPo reporter (who worked with Woodward, for God's sake!) and others who had a vendetta against anything connected with Bush or Cheney. Again, Libby's counsel failed him by not digging into the jury pool and challenging off what should have been identified as enemies.


I don't think a defendant has the same prerogatives in federal grand jury selection as they do in other types of juries, do they?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Schadow
Vice Admiral


Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Me#1You#10 wrote:
I don't think a defendant has the same prerogatives in federal grand jury selection as they do in other types of juries, do they?


Sorry about the confusion. In this instance, I was talking about the trial jury, where challenges for cause and peremptories are as usual.
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Me#1You#10
Site Admin


Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Schadow wrote:
Me#1You#10 wrote:
I don't think a defendant has the same prerogatives in federal grand jury selection as they do in other types of juries, do they?


Sorry about the confusion. In this instance, I was talking about the trial jury, where challenges for cause and peremptories are as usual.


Oops...no apologies needed...I misread your post.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tony54
PO2


Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Posts: 369
Location: cleveland, ohio

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 11:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Most people don't realize that a judge in a jury trial is basically just a referee.
The real judges ARE the jury, the buck stops there.
They are wrongly instructed to judge only by the evidence and the facts.
But their real duty is to judge the evidence, the facts, the prosecutor and "the law", that was supposedly broken.
So any juror that says Scooter should be pardoned, didn't know his or her job as a juror. Or just didn't do the job right.
Jurors cannot be held accountable in any way.
As in the OJ case, they get the last word, they are the last word.
All they have to do is vote their conscience.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
dusty
Admiral


Joined: 27 Aug 2004
Posts: 1264
Location: East Texas

PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 12:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

When you talk about a jury, you are talking about a group of people who are just like you and me or your next door neighbor or the guy or gal who lives down the street etc.
Here's the thing. It takes all kinds to make the world go around. I got to experience the differences in our perceptions and concepts, one person to another, when I was on a jury for a manslaughter case over in Louisiana.
Scenario:
Five guys transporting cars for a car dealer from Houston to New Orleans. They stop on the side of I-10 for a pitt stop and stretch their legs. Two of the guys get in a fight. One kicks the other one in the crotch. The one that got kicked then proceeds to go back to the car he was driving a get a pocket knife with which he then stabs and kills the guy who kicked him.
So now he's on trial for Manslaughter.
The perpetrator takes the stand and admits in open court that he stabbed and killed the other guy because the guy kicked him in the groin and he just 'lost' it. His words.
So ok. We go into the jury room to deliberate. Ends up only 3 of us, yours truly included would vote to convict the guy. The rest would not because...get this...the prosecution did not prove the guy's finger prints were on the knife.
Blew me away. So ever since then I have no confidence in the ability of the average person on the steet to have any common sense, intelligence or understanding whatsoever.
Makes it easy to understand how 1/3 of the people in this country believe our govt. planned 9/11.
My conclusion, a lot of people are complete and utter idiots. And the scary thing is....they can vote. And serve on juries.

Dusty
_________________
Left and Wrong are the opposite of Right!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tony54
PO2


Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Posts: 369
Location: cleveland, ohio

PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 12:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You are right on Dusty.
But prosecutors can and will stick it to an innocent man for his own motives. We see that all the time.
And its hard to make him accountable. if not impossible.
That's why the jury should and has the last say.
Most of the time the jury does good. Not always.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
GenrXr
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy


Joined: 05 Aug 2004
Posts: 1720
Location: Houston

PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 3:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sixdogteam wrote:
At least evil ignorant jurors could be swayed, perhaps. An evil smart three judge panel-- no way.


Like that a lot sixdogteam.

Our problem as a society is loss of faith in a creator and the lower moral compass which accompany it. There can be no man made law without God given natural law.
_________________
"An activist is the person who cleans up the water, not the one claiming its dirty."
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to stand by and do nothing." Edmund Burke (1729-1797), Founder of Conservative Philosophy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    SwiftVets.com Forum Index -> Geedunk & Scuttlebutt All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group