Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I guess the jury, who actually saw the evidence at trial, thought otherwise.> They saw the evidence that was allowed, and made a decision based on their instructions. We'll see if it stands.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You.Don't.Get.It. You continue to insist on applying standards that aren't there and/or required.> I continue to insist on common sense. <One is left with nothing else to conclude that you just can't accept that maybe others have been right about the corruption in this Administration.> One is left with that conclusion only if one comes to it with a preconceived notion. There are other ways to look at what has happened here besides through the liberal prism. That I do that doesn't make me a "hero worshipper" or a shill for the Bush administration.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <He privately thinks that libby was railroaded by some "liberal activist court" and that the evidence doesn't support the convictions. But he can't come out and actually say that because he knows he can't defend it afterwards.> I publicly think that Mr Libby was railroaded, although not necessarily by a liberal activist court, and that the evidence doesn't support the convictions.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh It's okay, of course, to respond to jon's nonsense. So please, continue jumping on with liberal talking points - about how Libby is a fall guy, and his conviction proves that the administration lied about Iraq. Don't worry that there's no actual evidence for it.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I publicly think that Mr Libby was railroaded, although not necessarily by a liberal activist court, and that the evidence doesn't support the convictions.<< If that's the case, then he'll be vindicated on appeal. Like you said, we'll see.
Originally Posted By jonvn He won't be vindicated. He might get his conviction overthrown on a technicality, but that is not vindication.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Of course, the left wing will continue to declare him guilty, and therefore the Bush Administration guilty, even if his appeal is successful.
Originally Posted By jonvn Yes, the left wing, like the jury. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.................
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Of course, the left wing will continue to declare him guilty, and therefore the Bush Administration guilty, even if his appeal is successful." Well, Doug, that would be because he is, especially if the verdicts are upheld. Did you read the Gergen and McCellan link? Even McClellan thinks there's more here than meets the eye. Your stance about "common sense" just doesn't have any merit. The law was applied, and Libby was found wanting. You still insist on your own rules here. Moreover, no one who refuses to take the stand to defend himself is railroaded (plus have a jury deliberate as long as this one did). Libby makes that decision, not the lawyer. Libby also had input into whether Cheney should testify. They made conscious decisions to remain silent. I've heard an appeal could be based on the court's call not to allow Libby's diaries or appointment books. That would be tantamount to allowing him to testify. If those were allowed in, the prosecution has a right to cross examine Libby on their contents. If he won't take the stand, no diaries or books are allowed, simple as that. At some point, you're going to have to accept the notion that Libby is responsible for his fate. He lied, he made the decisions that led to the type of defense he put on. He got railroaded, but he did it to himself.
Originally Posted By barboy "This entire thing will go down in history as the biggest disgrace to ever hit our nation." No, not even close. That "peculiar institution" (chattel slavery) disgraces us a 1000 times more than the the Iraq blunders/lies/deaths/opportunity costs.
Originally Posted By barboy "I know it is dang near impossible to convict someone who isn't truly guilty." ---Probably the 3rd most naive thing to read or hear about in the last 10 days.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 "He might get his conviction overthrown on a technicality, but that is not vindication." Oh goodie - now I'll get to read through 100 more posts arguing about the real definition of "vindication."
Originally Posted By jonvn Oh goodie - now I'll get to read through 100 more posts arguing about the real definition of "vindication." Well, you tell me what you think vindication means. If his conviction got overturned on a tiny little legal point, that certainly does not equate to vindication to me.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Can I withdraw the phrase vindication now, since I'm the one that said it? In the interest of humanity and of not getting entangled, please let's skip my poor choice of words. Strike it from the record, please. Replace it with whatever word I should have said instead and let's keep the train on the tracks.
Originally Posted By jonvn ok, 98: Vindication generally means exhoneration. that is, showing that someone did not in fact do the thing they were convicted of. When you case is overturned on appeal due to some technical reason, that does not show you to have not done the crime, it simply overturns the verdict. That does not make you out to be innocent. In the eyes of the law, you are innocent until proven guilty. Juries do not find you guilty or innocent. They simply find you guilty or not guilty. That is to say, they did not find enough evidence to cause them to vote guilty. They don't find you innocent. You could in all reality have done the crime, but simply been able to not get a jury to find you guilty. We don't do that in our system of law. We don't pronounce someone innocent of a crime. We simply say they are not guilty. There is a major difference. It's probably not likely this will be overturned anyway. Most convictions are not.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Can I withdraw the phrase vindication now, since I'm the one that said it? " too late!
