Posted on 03/06/2007 7:01:33 AM PST by Sub-Driver
CIA leak jury's notes suggest confusion
By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer 19 minutes ago
Juror notes in the CIA leak case suggest some jury room confusion about what exactly former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby is accused of doing.
After completing their ninth day of deliberations without a verdict Monday, jurors passed U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton three questions. All related to what Libby told the FBI regarding his 2003 telephone conversation with Time magazine's Matt Cooper about CIA operative Valerie Plame.
Libby is accused of lying about what he told Cooper. Cooper says Libby confirmed that Plame worked at the CIA. Libby told FBI agents that he only told Cooper he'd heard about Plame from other reporters but didn't know for sure whether she worked at the CIA.
In their questions, which were released Tuesday morning, jurors seemed confused about what Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was alleging.
Were prosecutors saying Libby knew that Plame worked for the CIA by the time of his FBI interview, jurors asked, or does the government believe Libby's account of the Cooper conversation was untrue?
There was no way to tell from the court discussion or the notes how far along the jury has come in weighing its verdicts on the five felony counts against the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.
Walton said he would address the questions Tuesday.
This jury has asked four questions about the Cooper conversation. The questions offered a glimpse into the jury's deliberations but it's unclear whether they originated with only one juror or the group.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
it would appear that this jury is as dumb as a box of rocks.....
~~~~~~~~~~
Attorney Fitzgerald, meet reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt, meet Attorney Fitzgerald.
If they're not even sure of what laws were violated or what he did, I'd say there's sufficient reasonable doubt to find him not guilty, even in D.C.
Or this case is so convoluted that it shouldn't be in court at all.
It's as if the jury is asking for more evidence-or asking the judge to help them in their deliberations. In either case, it shows that the case against Libby was not thorough, but the jury is reaching for ways to find him guilty.
Well, no kidding...
"it would appear that this jury is as dumb as a box of rocks...."
I don't think so. I think 90% of the country does not understand this case. Generally, political attacks are on speech tours, not the court room. That was reserved for the communist.
This is more of a sad case then a good case.
Translation: "Judge, we are confused as hell about this case. But then, we are a DC jury. We want you to tell us that Libby is guilty so we can make our decision and go home."
I'm not dumb as a box of rocks and I'm not even sure of what he's being accused of. I admit I haven't followed it real close, but as far as a I can tell Valarie Plame wasn't a covert agent but he's being accused of outing a covert agent? Seriously, what did he supposedly do?
In either case, it shows that the case against Libby was not thorough, but the jury is reaching for ways to find him guilty.
-----
Most likely, that is a correct perspective. And someone should remind the drooling, lying MSM that this is not a "CIA LEAK CASE" ... it is a PERJURY TRIAL. They just cannot keep the words 'leak' and 'Cheney' out of it, can they? Pretty obvious.
he is guilty of being a republican.........
LOL ping.
Not really. No one else can figure it out either.
Convoluted? I think "contrived" would be a better word.
1) What is your name?
2) What is your quest?
3) What is your favorite color?
4) What is the air speed velocity of a Swallow?
Both are hanging offenses! What is there to be confused about?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.