Scooter ~~ PING!
In my mind, if you need "clarification of the term 'reasonable doubt'", thats reasonable doubt.
David Corn seems to be thrilled at the thought of a conviction, even more than the others in the media. What is his involvement in this case, I can't seem to recall.
No, they have to prove guilt wihtout a reasonable doubt.
It could be reasonable if there is a 5% chance he is telling the truth.
I'd love to be on that jury. It could be ten or eleven other people vs. just me and I'd sit there and laugh at them.
spork-ulation
"Wisenberg said the government is not required to prove guilt with 100% certainty."
Is this true or is this Clintoonesque, parsed lawyerspeak?
Just curious, but is it proper for the judge to tell the msm what the jury asks him during deliberations?
Could somebody 'splain what this is likely to mean?
The only interpretation I can make of it is that there's at least one holdout who insists on going through eight hours of testimony (again) if he's going to even entertain voting for a guilty verdict.
Don't worry everyone! No matter whether Libby is found guilty or not, one thing is clear. It will be THE END OF BUSHITLERAMERIKKKA!!!!1111 either way. DU told me.
Hinting at deadlock? What was the crime?
Must be about 9 or 10 moonbats on the jury and one or two reasonable people. What reasonable person would convict someone of not remembering unimportant and irrelevant facts. Make someone do hard time for a faulty memory, This is insane.
I would be kicked off that jury for sure.
I could not keep myself from coming home at night or weekend and searching this forum for information on the case.
It is a fact beyond doubt that the ability to recall every event that happens to a person is not a normal human ability. It would be impossible for a prosecutor to prove otherwise.
So, if this is deadlocked, will the Government bring this dog's breakfast of a case to trial yet again?
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.
"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.