Article

2007-02-17 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by ryuge 2007-02-17 08:34|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Is there anyone who cares about this case outside of the bash Bush media and Beltway inside baseball freaks?

Posted by tu3031 2007-02-17 08:47|| 2007-02-17 08:47|| Front Page Top

#2 if Fitzgerald had any ethics or class, he would drop the case, resign and lay low for a decade. Fitzmas never happened

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2007-02-17 08:54|| 2007-02-17 08:54|| Front Page Top

#3 If I was on the jury, my question would be, "Can we sentence the prosecutor and the journalists to death? Along with the traitors Plame and her hubby?

Posted by Silentbrick">Silentbrick 2007-02-17 11:15|| 2007-02-17 11:15|| Front Page Top

#4 How --by common law-- can one justify withholding facts or evidence from a jury? if a witness does that, it's unacceptable, but if a judge does, it's fine?

Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2007-02-17 13:47|| 2007-02-17 13:47|| Front Page Top

#5 How --by common law-- can one justify withholding facts or evidence from a jury?

Easy. The Judge is a Liberal. Different set of rules, you know.

Posted by Omolurt Elmeaper6990 2007-02-17 19:37|| 2007-02-17 19:37|| Front Page Top

#6 Allow me to defend the judge: it's the judge's job to ensure that a fair trial is presented. The judge has to allow all the facts in that are relevant, but keep out facts that are irrelevant, to the case. In the Libby trial it was stipulated beforehand that the release of Plame's identity wasn't be tried and wasn't to be an issue. So all mention of it has to be kept out.

One could see a juror, hearing (as if they hadn't already) that Libby was involved in the 'outing of an American cover agent', would vote to convict on perjury regardless of the facts.

So the judge is right.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2007-02-17 20:52|| 2007-02-17 20:52|| Front Page Top

#7 Under common law it's not up to the judge to decide what facts the jury may or may not consider.

One could see a juror -- upon hearing that there was absolutely no crime in the first instance of prosecution activity -- figure out that Libby is a scapegoat who may have been scared into somewhat misrepresenting his earlier actions because he was under threat for a crime that never happened.

This is a witch hunt and the judge has no legitimate power to hide from the jury that the initial attempt to frame Libby was based on false accusations. If the judge is allowed to act like that, hiding facts from jurors, then NOBODY CAN EVER BE SAFE from government persecution. They'll just keep going after you until they destroy your life, and meanwhile you will never be allowed to tell the jury the truth: there never was a crime in the first instance, which is all the jury really needs to know.

If I were a juror, and I'm told Libby is accused of lying, but he did it in order to evade a false accusation -- I'd free him and ask that the prosecutor and judge be tried and executed for abuse of government power. That's what it will take to preserve our liberties.

The fact that Plame was not a covert agent is crucial to the case. That's why they're actively hiding it from the jury.

Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2007-02-17 21:08|| 2007-02-17 21:08|| Front Page Top

23:43 SteveS
23:30 crazyhorse
23:26 Old Patriot
23:17 Barbara Skolaut
22:47 WolfDog
22:39 KBK
22:38 whatadeal
22:33 ryuge
22:32 USN, ret.
22:30 Chuck Simmins
22:24 USN, ret.
22:15 trailing wife
22:07 USN, ret.
22:06 trailing wife
22:01 3dc
21:59 VietVet68
21:57 trailing wife
21:56 3dc
21:54 trailing wife
21:54 Anguper Hupomosing9418
21:42 USN, ret.
21:40 USN, ret.
21:37 Anguper Hupomosing9418
21:35 USN, ret.