Originally Posted By DlandDug >>...we all know one doesn't lie unless either there's something to hide or one is psychopathic.<< No, not really. There's lots of reasons to lie, many I am sure we couldn't even imagine. >>It sounds like they (the jury) bought into the idea that this was about the leak, not the lies.<< The investigation was originally intended to find out who leaked the news about Valerie Plame. By the time it came to trial, the only member of the administration that could be charged was Libby, who was implicated not for leaking, but for obstructing the investigation. That the jury was confused about their actual task is the fault of the prosecution.
Originally Posted By jonvn "why do jurors keep coming out and saying that they openly wondered why Carl Rove wasn't charged in the leak?" Maybe because they thought that should be prosecuted. That is disjoint from them convicting Libby of obstruction of justice. The two things are separate. And they probably did not prosecute Rove because they do not feel they have enough evidence to convict. Perhaps because of Libby's obstruction. That, however, we don't know. But to suggest they did nothing wrong because they were not prosecuted is disingenuous. Particularly since one high level staffer has now been convicted of obstruction. It casts a pall over the entire administration.
Originally Posted By retlawfan <<That the jury was confused about their actual task is the fault of the prosecution.>> I think that is true, but I also think it was intentional. I think the prosecution went after him, because that was all he could find. And, I think that they suggested enough to lead the jury to consider the Plame angle, instead of the issue at hand. <<But to suggest they did nothing wrong because they were not prosecuted is disingenuous. Particularly since one high level staffer has now been convicted of obstruction. It casts a pall over the entire administration.>> That is true. I don't mean to say they (anyone in the administration) did nothing wrong. For all of us to speculate on that is just that. Speculation. If there was proof, I'm sure this prosecutor would have gone after it. But, that does not mean that Libby should have been convicted bacause people THINK that there was something going on higher up. He should have been convicted if he actually lied to investigators. And, as I said before, If he did lie, than he should be convicted.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder ">>...we all know one doesn't lie unless either there's something to hide or one is psychopathic.<< No, not really. There's lots of reasons to lie, many I am sure we couldn't even imagine" Yes, really. The two categories I mentioned are akin to two large umbrellas, if you will. They cover the waterfront.
Originally Posted By jonvn "If there was proof, I'm sure this prosecutor would have gone after it." There has to be sufficient proof to get a conviction. And if Libby covered up to hide that proof, then they'd not be able to get it, would they? That's why obstruction of justice is a crime. "He should have been convicted if he actually lied to investigators." Well, apparently the jury thinks that is what happened, and they saw all the evidence at trial. At least enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty.
Originally Posted By retlawfan <<Well, apparently the jury thinks that is what happened, and they saw all the evidence at trial. At least enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty. >> Yeah, but that's where I'm stuck on this one. I think they convicted Libby because of what they perceived was going on with higher ups, and that Libby was being made a scape goat. So, all they could do was convict him. In fact one of the jurors said something just like that. I am not saying he should not have been convicted. We agree on that. If he lied, he should have. If the jurors who are speaking ut came out and said, something like "We heard the evidence. we believe he lied to investigators, so we voted for a conviction", I would have no problem with it. But the jurors who are speaking keep mentioning Carl Rove and Dick Chaney. The jurors were not there to judge Rove or Cheney (who should also be charged if evidence suggests they commited any crime).
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Well, Doug, that would be because he is, especially if the verdicts are upheld.> If the verdicts are not upheld, then he would not be guilty. <Did you read the Gergen and McCellan link? Even McClellan thinks there's more here than meets the eye.> Yes, I did read the link, and I didn't see McCellan saying any such thing.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 The Wilsons, apparently, are going ahead with their civil suit, which has a lower burden of proof than a criminal one (remember O.J.). It will be interesting to see if Cheney, Rove, et al will testify at that one. SPP - what are the rules in a civil trial about defendants and if they can be compelled to testify? How about if Rove is a defendant but Cheney, say, is not? Can the prosecution compel Cheney to testify?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "SPP - what are the rules in a civil trial about defendants and if they can be compelled to testify? How about if Rove is a defendant but Cheney, say, is not? Can the prosecution compel Cheney to testify?" They can try and invoke 5th amendment rights in a civil trial if they think there's a possibility what they say could be used against them in either a concurrent or subsequent criminal proceeding. If there's no danger of that, then they have to testify. So, Rove couldbe made to testify. As for Cheney, sure. Nothing about being the VP gives him an exclusion of any kind, unless he tries to say it involves a matter of national security.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "<Did you read the Gergen and McCellan link? Even McClellan thinks there's more here than meets the eye.> Yes, I did read the link, and I didn't see McCellan saying any such thing." "What I do think is clear is that there's a lot more to know," White House veteran David Gergen said Tuesday. "And there had to be a reason why the defense attorney did not put Scooter Libby and the vice president on the stand." Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was convicted Tuesday of lying and obstructing an investigation into the Bush administration's actions leading into the Iraq war. (Full story) "Perhaps [defense attorney] Ted Wells never even knew why Scooter Libby didn't want to go on the stand. But clearly, there's something behind this case," Gergen, a former adviser to Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton, told CNN's "Larry King Live." "Why would Scooter Libby lie, as the jury determined? Why would he not take the stand? Why would the vice president not take the stand? There's clearly something they do not wish to discuss. And I don't know what that is." Appearing with Gergen, former White House press secretary Scott McClellan said, "It will be interesting to see if the White House can sustain not talking about this through the appeals process."
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder And the rest.... "Appearing with Gergen, former White House press secretary Scott McClellan said, "It will be interesting to see if the White House can sustain not talking about this through the appeals process." Libby's attorneys have vowed to seek a new trial, or, failing that, to appeal the jury's verdict. "I would be advising the White House to get out there and find some way to talk about this in enough detail to answer some of those questions that David brings up that are still hanging out there," added McClellan, a former spokesman for the Bush."
Originally Posted By jonvn "I think they convicted Libby because of what they perceived was going on with higher ups" Well, that's speculation that I see no reason to believe. "If the jurors who are speaking ut came out and said, something like" That is what their vote says. They have no obligation to explain. And the fact is that 11 of them all voted to convict. If you've never been on a jury, they give some very specific instructions on what does and does not convict someone. What you are suggesting, while far from impossible, is not all that likely either.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>"I think they [the jury] convicted Libby because of what they perceived was going on with higher ups" Well, that's speculation that I see no reason to believe.<< There's no speculation at all. One of the jurors said the following on Good Morning America: "There was a tremendous amount of sympathy for Mr. Libby on the jury. It was said a number of times, 'What are we doing with this guy here? Where's Rove? Where are these other guys?'" If you choose to disbelieve the juror himself, that's your privilege.
Originally Posted By jonvn No, I don't disbelieve him, but I also don't think that means what you said it does. I think it means that this juror thinks these other people should be brought to trial for what they did. Now, if they asked him directly on this, and he said something more definite along the lines of what you are saying, then I'd go along with you. But right now, I just don't see it as that. So, for instance, he might have meant why isn't Rove here on trial for obstructing justice, too? Now if what you are saying is correct, it could be grounds for a new trial.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And they probably did not prosecute Rove because they do not feel they have enough evidence to convict. Perhaps because of Libby's obstruction.> Or because he's innocent.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <That the jury was confused about their actual task is the fault of the prosecution.> Or the judge.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Or because he's innocent." If he's innocent then they likely wouldn't have enough evidence to convict him, now would they. Thank you captain obvious.
