A decision was made by the judge not to call in one of the alternate jurors, both (?) of whom had been excused with instructions not to follow the case in the media. Under the rules, it’s within the judge’s discretion. The defense was okay with it and the prosecution objected.
Cisco: I think that’s specious reasoning. If there’s no likelihood of a pardon, wouldn’t he be more inclined to cut a deal with the government for a reduced or suspended sentence in exchange for his assistance with other matters? [Disclaimer: no inside knowledge about this particular issue at all]
Also, had they put in one of the alternate jurors, the jury would’ve had to restart deliberations from the beginning. I guess the defense decided it was a better trade-off to just keep going as is.
That’s a predictable next step. At worst, it buys time and allows the defense to develop additional grounds for appeal. At best, he gets a new trial.
I think Bush and associates want to distance themselves from the whole scandal. The best way to do that is to leave him to fend for himself. Plus, minimizing Libby’s infraction would open old wounds from the Clinton impeachment.
Considering the Bizzaro world logic that works in this White House, I’m surprised Libby and his attorneys didn’t delclare this a great victory!
I’ll have to agree that they’ll drag this out through the Supreme Court by which time the election will be over and Dick Cheney’s little buddy will pardon him for any crimes.
I’m not gonna participate in the wagering on this one, but I do think there will be a pardon for Libby before Shrub leaves office, assuming the appeals fail. As I see it, the heel here is Cheney. Libby is a company man, and took the fall for Cheney. Bush rewards that loyalty after the election, sometime before ordering the staff to remove all of the "R"s from the keyboards…(which would be fun irony, and almost worth enduring a Hillary presidency in and of itself. Almost.)
Well, boys, there you have it. It is now official: this Administration lies.
I find it intriguing that one of the jurors said that some of the jurors had a hard time with having to declare a Bush employee guilty. Sounds like they favor the administration, but found themselves compelled by the evidence to vote guilty.
Given how long it took them, want to bet the jury talked about a lot more than the evidence before them?
Even though the defense said it was ok with proceeding with just 11 jurors, would they be able to use this as a reason to press for a retrial? Or does agreeing to continue, short a juror, close that path?
Indeed! I suggest reading CNN’s article about the jury’s deliberations. It left me with renewed respect for the citizens who take on such a vital and difficult burden.
I’m not speaking as a mod here, but I’m not comfortable with this. It doesn’t seem like you’re fairly participating in the discussion here.
My view is that it is hardly unknown for presidents to issue a metric boatload of pardons on the way out of the Oval Office. Given Bush’s tremendous sense of loyalty to his minions, and the fact that Libby is taking one for the team, I view it as at least 75% probable that he gets one.
Although we’ll see, of course.