Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <If he's innocent then they likely wouldn't have enough evidence to convict him, now would they. Thank you captain obvious.> I was responding more to your suggestion about Mr Libby's "obstruction" than your comment about the amount of evidence. I haven't seen any evidence that the fact that Mr Libby told a different version of events then two reporters has any bearing on what Mr Rove did.
Originally Posted By jonvn " I haven't seen any evidence " Apparently the jury did. Seems the 11 of them managed to figure it out.
Originally Posted By jonvn How do you know? Did you see all the evidence they did? But assume they did not. Your contention is meaningless. You don't need every last shred of information to convict someone of something. You simply need enough to pass the burdern of beyond a reasonable doubt. This does not mean ANY doubt, this means a reasonable doubt, and to a moral certainty. If you don't understand this, you don't understand the law. Which is either the case, or you are simply just being dishonest again.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <How do you know? Did you see all the evidence they did?> Of course not. But I did read enough to know there wasn't any information that showed Mr Rove was guilty of anything. <Which is either the case, or you are simply just being dishonest again.> You're projecting again.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Of course not" Then you're in any position to say, are you. Thanks for playing.
Originally Posted By barboy "You simply need enough to pass the burdern of beyond a reasonable doubt." This is straight up misleading because it is legal rhetoric and i'll bet that 95% or more of the populous doesn't know or understand what "beyond a reasonable doubt" means and how it works in criminal matters(or "preponderance of the evidence" as applied in the civil arena). Here is reality/truth: The public doesn't need one shred of proof, none, to convict a criminal defendant; the public just has to convince a jury that one has committed a crime. Remember that the threshold of "beyond reasonable doubt" is textbook legal jargon THEORY--- just theory only. In the real world juries use biases, emotions and conjecture routinely when deciding the fate of a criminal defendant.
