Mar 08 2007

One juror favors a pardon…

The Drudge Report has the scoop on this one.

The juror is partially right. Libby was caught up in the investigation – and it was an investigation that should have ended long before Libby and Rove were called to the stand. In the end, rather than admit there was nothing and that it had been a wild-goose chase, Patrick Fitzgerald chose to ruin the life of Scooter Libby.

A pardon may be called for if an appeals court cannot overturn this absurd verdict.

27 responses so far

27 Responses to “One juror favors a pardon…”

  1. Jacqui says:

    One must wonder if Fitzgerald, knowing there was no case from the beginning, used his special prosecutor assignment to settle old scores. Judith Miller sat in jail for weeks for no reason – since Fitz already knew the truth. She was suspected of tipping off persons via a story she wrote who were being investigated by Fitz in another case. Libby was the lawyer for Marc Rich, another person that went out of Fitz’ grasp due to the Clinton pardon – where Libby’s legal docs were used. Almost as if to say – see if you can get yourself a pardon. If Fitz’ motives are what they appear to be, then this is something to fear.

  2. Aitch748 says:

    There is indeed something very strange about this. Despite all the talk about how sorry the jurors felt for Libby, this woman voted to put Libby in prison. Now she wants him pardoned? Maybe Jacqui has a point that these are moves in some Machiavellian game of chess.

    Of course, this juror saying “pardon Libby” also makes her look like a complete blithering idiot, so maybe the explanation is really that simple.

  3. Retired Spook says:

    The fact that this juror stated that the “real crime” was the outing of a CIA agent, when no such charge was ever made, leads me to believe that the jury did, indeed take into account information and evidence that were not presented during the trial in arriving at their verdict. I would think that that alone would be a virtual guarantee of either a new trial or a successful appeal.

  4. MerlinOS2 says:


    And there is also the little matter that this outing case big view was specifically forbidden under the judge’s jury instructions.

    Guess now we know the jury can read stuff as well as they write notes.

  5. Retired Spook says:

    Merlin, I thought I had heard that somewhere. Do you have a link to a report or article that says that?

    Don’t you get the feeling that the aftermath of this trial is going to be way more interesting (and fun) than the trial itself?

  6. MerlinOS2 says:

    Don’t have the link but it was discussed over at JOM.

    The linked to the pdf sometime back of the instructions and I believe one of the posters converted it to a word document (Cbolt I think)

  7. dennisa says:

    People might want to read this article:

    Of particular interest is the statement that Fitzgerald already knew, at Novak’s first interview, that Armitage was Novak’s source. So Fitzgerald knew who had talked about Plame early on. And he didn’t prosecute Armitage, so Fitzgerald must have concluded that there was no violation of the statute.

    Before someone attacks Novak, realize that Novak did what a journalist is supposed to do. He reported the truth. He told his public who sent Wilson to Niger.

    More dangerous are those journalists who willingly participate in a lie for political reasons. Some names – Corn, Kristof, the New York Times. They are not journalists, they are political hatchet men. Each and every one of them should retract the lies they’ve been publishing about the “smear” of poor Joe Wilson.

    And the most dangerous person of all is Mr. Fitzgerald. This man clearly should not be exercising the powers of a U.S. Attorney. He abused his office to persecute Mr. Libby, who he has personal reasons to dislike. And also, apparently, to throw Judith Miller, another person against whom he apparently has a grudge, in prison. Mr. Fitzgerald should face disciplinary action for his conduct of this investigation.

  8. Soothsayer says:

    the most dangerous person of all is Mr. Fitzgerald. This man clearly should not be exercising the powers of a U.S. Attorney. He abused his office to persecute Mr. Libby, who he has personal reasons to dislike. And also, apparently, to throw Judith Miller, another person against whom he apparently has a grudge, in prison. Mr. Fitzgerald should face disciplinary action for his conduct of this investigation.

    Lay off smokin’ the crack, Dennis, it’s frying your cerebellum. He didn’t ask for the lousy job – he just did his duty. It’s not his fault Libby lied and got caught.

    If you want to talk about abusing the office of US Attorney – try looking at the current AttorneyGate investigations of hte Justice Department and serial perjurer Speedy Gonzales.

  9. dennisa says:

    The essence of this campaign, by some Democrats, to “get” Libby or to “get” Rove, is that the truth about Democrats should never come out. It’s okay for the Democrats to repeat lies about Republicans – they are doing that this very minute, loud and long. But if a Republican tells the truth about a Democrat – i.e., that Wilson was sent to Niger by his wife – that’s unacceptable, there must be investigations, these people must be silenced.

  10. dennisa says:

    Soothie – How about a nice big cup of shut up?

    1) I don’t care what you have to say.

    2) I don’t care if you resort to insulting me.

    3) I’ve invited you a couple of times to tell us who pays you to post.

    4) I resent your spreading lies on the internet.

  11. MerlinOS2 says:


    Gee and you kinds smoothed over that they serve at the please of the President. He can dismiss them because he doesn’t like the color of their hair.

    What do you suggest for corrective action when Janet Reno at the edict of Mr Bill fired ALL the US Attorneys?

    BTW your crack problem seems to related to rectal cranial inversion.

    Hope someone buys you a Plexiglas bellybutton for your birthday , so you can see where your going.

    It’s getting a little tiresome watching you bump into the furniture all the time.

  12. Aitch748 says:

    I would cheer if AJ figured out how to add an “Ignore User” option to this site, I really would.

  13. dennisa says:

    “He didn’t ask for the lousy job”

    And given the lousy job he did, he shouldn’t have taken it.

  14. retire05 says:

    So what is the I.Q. of this juror? If the crime to her was the outing of a covert agent, why would she vote to convict Libby and then want a pardon for him? What was she told in the jury room?
    This case was to be if Libby committed a crime by lying to the grand jury. The jury was instucted by the judge to not take into consideration Plame’s status as a covert/non-covert agent. But they clearly did as she feels that was the whole case to begin with.

    God, has our judicial system falling that far?

  15. Carol_Herman says:

    Actually, it should be entertaining to see how the robed wonders deal with this hot potato.

    First, consider this. The DC circuit has judges that want to move up to the supreme bench. And, both Stevens who is 88, and Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who has health issues; may make vacancies possible.

    This is the kind of pressure that gives the judges gas.

    Do they intervene? Thereby, upsetting the cash register? You know. Where lawyers make money no matter what happens.

    Or do they dare bitch slap waltoon around? Something totally forbidden by PC.

    Ah. And, all of this plays out to a very bored audience in DC.

    Libby got shafted with the same knife that went into Martha Stewart.

    And, ya know what? Going after real criminals is much more difficult these days, considering how rich they are. And, how politicians are in their pockets.

    Yes, I feel sorry for Libby. Worse, that for some reason he used Wells. Martha Stewart also hired the handicapped. In other words? Not every lawyer is worth $700 per hour. Probably? None of them are.

    Of course, there are other questions to raise. How come, with Mr. Light In His Loafers, so sure Harriet Miers should have gotten O’Connor’s supreme-O seat, that he didn’t go to her and ask her to analyze Comey’s appointment? Wouldn’t that opinion have been worthy of attention?

    Actually, a much clearer picture of Bush is emerging. He’s a spoiled brat. Who demands men wear suits and ties. And, talk in a manner best suited for funeral parlors. And, then he expects loyalty because he is “da man.” He doesn’t want anyone to upset his day. Or voice opinions that are critical. It’s just not nice.

    And, for that reason Bush is gonna be responsible for his own reputation. Not that it was a bad idea to topple Saddam. Only that it continues to be a bad idea to be the Realtor for the House of Saud, while trying to push things NOT SAUDI in the Saudi’s direction. Like syria. Where on their own? Seems the Saudis are now spending lots of money! Without getting much traction in their Bush investment, either.

    At least people are learning that the types of candidates that run for office, MATTER! And, neither Bush has presidential mettle. Hope it’s fixable.

  16. MerlinOS2 says:


    So far we have two jurors who have revealed that there seems to be valid questions of skating over the bounds of the jury instructions.

    Now the question is can and will Walton rule for jury nullification and a mistrial.

    Walton was very clear of the intended narrow scope of the charges and his rulings on motions during this trial show that.

  17. MerlinOS2 says:

    Prior response meant for Retire05 not RS

    Gotta quit speed reading blogs I guess.

  18. Bikerken says:

    Well I said before the verdict exactly what was going to happen and I was right on. The jurors are sucking up the fawning admiration of the left wing press who are practically spooning with them for convicting Libby.

    Did you guys know that that jackass Denis Collins released an very long article recapping all of the jury deliberations to Huffington post within 24 hrs of the verdict???!! Here is the link:

    This guy is the one who was Russerts next door neighboor and the one who worked under Bob Woodward at the WaPo. He is a washed up nobody journo who obviously saw an opportunity to revive his career by writing a book about this case. From what I understand, his remarks during (whatever that word is for jury screening) were simply that he was a journalist. He didn’t mention having close personal contacts with Russert, Woodward and knowing Wilson. I have no legal training whatsoever but this stinks to high heaven. For those of you who are legal eagles, is this kind of crap even legal? This looks like the biggest, most obvious railroading case I’ve ever seen.

  19. MerlinOS2 says:


    In the jury screening he noted his links to Russert and Woodward and also that he had written a book on the CIA spy history center.

    His article at HuffPo also shows Iskoff at one time was a house guest and he also mentioned a NYT reporter who’s name escapes me at the moment.

    About the only thing he hasn’t spilled his guts about is the burning question of if he is Joe Wilson’s second cousin.

  20. ivehadit says:

    Sounds like a severly tainted jury, imho. …a real John Grisham novel.

    And soothie, Joe Wilson is a proven liar.