Posted on 03/03/2007 1:56:15 PM PST by STARWISE
"Is this true or is this Clintoonesque, parsed lawyerspeak?"
____
Solomon Wisenberg worked for Kenneth Starr.
He was not a part of the Clinton gang.
Hoping for deadlock BUMP
So, if this is deadlocked, will the Government bring this dog's breakfast of a case to trial yet again?
I believe that, if it's a hung jury, the prosecutor has that option. I refuse to call him special right now. He's been an absolute jerk.
AFTER you took an oath?
This site IS very addicting.
Clearly the government would have the option. But would they?
Sounds to me like one or two jurors can't understand what "reasonable doubt" means and are holding out for conviction, while the rest of the jurors want to just throw the whole disgraceful mess out and go home.
The main accuser, Big Tim Russert can't remember when he stepped on Little Tim and forgot he chewed out a reporter TWICE over the phone and then had to submit a very embarassing letter of retraction in his hometown newspaper.
You would think he'd remember that....
Yet Tim Russert is now the Pope, infalible and his poor memory is beyond all reasonable doubt.
Wow, this article reiterates pretty much everything I've said about this case from day 2.
I think the jury foreman (foreperson?) is a BSD sufferer who is giving it their all to get a conviction. Let's see who can hold out the longest.
It seems to me the only reason to try a case like this is if Fitz has bought into the whole conspiracy angle .Libby is obstructing justice about what? a bunch of media induced gossip or some huge sinister plot. (it has to be the sinister plot or why bother)
So if Fitz is a true believer and if the trial is deadlocked he will go after Libby again.
"If a single juror balks at convicting Libby, who is accused of lying to investigators probing who leaked CIA spy Valerie Plame's identity, the judge will declare a mistrial and prosecutors could retry him."
Put it another way, reporter Meeks: If a single juror balks at finding Libby innocent"......
I mean, if Meeks is going to play guessing games, he should give his readers both, plucked from thin air, scenarios.
Thanks. Maybe one of these days I'll do something about my reading comprehension. (or lack thereof)
I'd bet - given the tendancies of a DC jury -- that 9 of the 11 want to convict, but 2 others know the case is NOT proven beyond reasonable doubt. The 9 wackos are trying to redefine terms to get the sane ones to budge.
I'm sure they'd try to DQ me as "uncooperative"., but F'em.
Yep, I suppose I have to agree - - a Dirty City jury can't be any smarter than a Los Angeles "OJ" jury. That is, they couldn't spell "DNA" if you spotted them the 'D' and the 'A'. Stay out da Bushes. Convict. Etc.
"It could be ten or eleven other people vs. just me and I'd sit there and laugh at them." So would I. Most people, unfortunately, wouldn't. Looks like Libby's going down. I sure hope I'm wrong.
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.