Shock: Guess who wants Libby pardoned? Update: Video added
posted at 8:10 pm on March 7, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | regular view
Nobody important. Just one of the jurors who convicted him. Spoken on Hardball:
Ann (juror): Yeah, I think in the big picture, um, it kind of bothers me that there was this whole big crime being investigated and he got caught up in the investigation as opposed to in the actual crime that was supposedly committed.
Chris Matthews: Which is the leaking of a CIA agents name.
Ann: Exactly.
Never mind that Libby didn’t leak Plame’s name, that the so-called leak wasn’t a crime, and that the investigation should have either turned in Dick Armitage’s direction or shut down once the prosecutor learned the identity of the “leaker.” The question is, how do you convict a man only to turn around and publicly hope he gets a pardon? Is that not, at the very least, the juror’s abdication of responsibility?
Update (AP): A pardon’s not gonna happen — at least not anytime soon — but here’s the vid for what it’s worth.
More (Bryan): Thanks for getting the video up, AP.
It takes an awful lot to leave me speechless, but that clip leaves me speechless. She wants Libby pardoned because “It would be fun…It would be fun to follow” and because it would make work for people like Chris Matthews…? A man’s freedom hangs in the balance and she a) convicted him and now b) wants him pardoned, for the fun of it. Egad, how was this jury chosen?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
I was on a stupid jury once for the typical automobile accident driver had no insurance civil case.
To those of you who have never served on a jury, please know one thing:
Fact, logic and law have nothing to do with the deliberation process.
I would put my fate on a bench trial.
VinceP1974 on March 7, 2007 at 8:21 PM
too little to late friend. Go home with your family and watch your tapes of Meet the Press. Idiot.
tomas on March 7, 2007 at 8:22 PM
Are all of these juror revelations going to assist in getting this conviction tossed? One juror comes out saying they felt bad, questioned why they were judging Libby, and were wishing it was Rove and the “other guys” on trial. Then he writes a fricken’ post at the Huffington Post! Now this broad wants Libby pardoned!!!???
RightWinged on March 7, 2007 at 8:22 PM
There was another really interesting thing that came out on the show. Matthews kept insisting that it was Cheney that set the trip to Niger in motion. Kate O’Beirne pointed out that it was established in the trial that Plame suggested sending her hubby the day before Cheney asked for more information on Niger.
Matthews tried to argue it but ended up conceding on one of the “facts” he has been asserting for over a year.
JackStraw on March 7, 2007 at 8:25 PM
It’s always a let-down when the circus leaves town.
Buck Turgidson on March 7, 2007 at 8:29 PM
Zero Tolerance
Zero Common Sense
The amount of hate is palpable
Bush’s legacy? Not cleaning house when he was first elected.
Libby’s legacy? Talking to reporters.
What a load of donkey hockey
Kini on March 7, 2007 at 8:32 PM
Rush was going off on the case this morning. Some of the info comming out about the jury is just insane. To quote John Goodman in Big Lebowski: “Has the whole world gone CRAZY!?”
Max Power on March 7, 2007 at 8:35 PM
A jury is just swayed by the most outspoken person of the twelve. In this case I am convinced it was this Denis Collins arse. He was having a grand old time with this whole deal, and now he stands to make a nice chunck of change from the inevitable book deal.
The fact that he was even allowed to serve is very questionable.
reaganaut on March 7, 2007 at 8:38 PM
Someone said this gal is an attention whore. Yep, she is.
csdeven on March 7, 2007 at 8:38 PM
I’m no legal scholar, but how did the author get on the jury?
Pam on March 7, 2007 at 8:39 PM
If Scotter was indeed tried by a jury of his peers, he belongs in prison. Stupid Prison!
Wade on March 7, 2007 at 8:40 PM
I’m thinking “eenie, meenie, meinie, moe.”
Slublog on March 7, 2007 at 8:40 PM
Weren’t the prosecutors looking for avowed democrats to put in the jury? So they could get the verdict they wanted no matter what?
lorien1973 on March 7, 2007 at 8:47 PM
You got that right…….
Note to any future Republican President:
CLEAN HOUSE, and DON”T CARE about the Liberals and Press screaming like stuck pigs….. that’s why we voted for you!
PinkyBigglesworth on March 7, 2007 at 8:50 PM
Facts? We don’t need no stink’n FACTS!!
The world is now offically insane. Do whatever the hell you want. If it doesn’t work out, blame Booosh.
Scotsman on March 7, 2007 at 8:50 PM
There was never any reason to question Libby in the first place. Justice had Armitage’s admission he was the source before they even appointed Fitzy. But the Bush PC Admin kowtowed to the Left and destroyed a man’s like in the process. You can’t play the Left’s game by the Left’s rules and expect to win.
TheBigOldDog on March 7, 2007 at 8:50 PM
I liked her answers
Opinionnation on March 7, 2007 at 8:51 PM
What a sin… a sad day for America the Beautiful.
Zorro on March 7, 2007 at 8:52 PM
I think it fits that an attorney would want a journalist on the jury in a trial that will have very much to do with other journalists.
Pinky, I understand your sentiment, but cleaning the whole house is impractical. Unless Wilson was seen as a threat there would be no reason to move him out.
csdeven on March 7, 2007 at 8:57 PM
Neal Boortz has talked about the inherent bias in jury selection on his show a bit. How smart, productive people find ways to avoid jury duty so it tends toward less ambitious and lower intelligent types. I started seriously thinking about it during OJ, when it was obvious you had a jury that lacked the intelligence to understand the evidence, and I really believe we need to look into professional jurors. Because lets face it, the selection pool looked alot different when the jury of your peers thing was first started, the drooling dimwit cleaning the stables wasn’t a candidate back then.
B Moe on March 7, 2007 at 8:59 PM
An excellent question. There are attorneys out there that specialize in selecting or dismissing candidates for a jury. I wonder if the law firm Libby was using had such a lawyer or hired one for the jury selection. If I was Libby, I’d be pretty upset with my legal team right about now.
Mallard T. Drake on March 7, 2007 at 9:03 PM
A few things to consider: The jury foreman said that jurors “felt sorry” for Libby because they felt that Rove( and possibly higher) was the responsible party. Strange that Rove was NOT INDICTED BY THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR. And I thought kangaroos only lived in Australia.
Secondly, Washington DC (which includes surrounding areas of Maryland and Virginia, are HEAVILY DEMOCRATIC which is precisely why Republican defendants get treated like Duke lacrosse players and why Democratic transgressors get a wink and a nod.
Thirdly, I would not count too heavily on a Bush pardon for Scooter Libby. Bush turned his back on the Swift Boat Veterans (even though THEY ALONE GAVE HIM THE 2004 ELECTION) and further turned his back on the hero Border Patrol Agents. I sincerely hope I am wrong but fear the worst.
MaiDee on March 7, 2007 at 9:04 PM
“The only people who ever sit on a jury are the people too inately stupid to get out of jury duty”… she proves the point.
SilverStar830 on March 7, 2007 at 9:08 PM
Did Libby’s lawyer take the “short bus” home every day at the end of court?
Sean M. on March 7, 2007 at 9:15 PM
The defense ran out of objections. Apparently the jury pool in DC is stacked with vindictive liberals, go figure.
Theworldisnotenough on March 7, 2007 at 9:18 PM
Never have seen such a bunch of people so full of themselves. Wilson bragging and preeening in Vanity Fair, hanging out of a vehicle that he by rights shouldn’t be able to afford, if one did the math, along with Madame Wilson who knotted a couture scarf over her head to pose like Mata Hari for a magazine known primarily for its pathetic fawning over wealth and privilege, delighted in her self-aborbed sense of movie star spy. Fitzgerald, hogging the cameras and chewing up taxpayers’ money as if it was worthless, earnestly prosecuting a case that is all about whether a man said what he thought he had said on Tuesday instead of Friday. That’s the crime! A timetable screw-up. Not murder, not theft, not anything! Now the jurors are falling all over themselves to have that camera lens aimed at them, zooming in while they gleefully brag about how they completely trashed a man’s rights, not a lick of pity for him, his wife and family, baldly announcing Step 2 of the Master Plan, re-live Watergate by chipping away at the Republicans by casting Cheney as Agnew, and taking him out first, then drag down Nixon, I mean Bush. This time, they won’t make the mistake of allowing Nixon … er Bush to appoint Gerald Ford…uh … rather a Vice President. This way, Pelosi can be President, a true-blue Democrat Coup d’Etat. Remember, Hillary and her buddies cooked up the apparent justifications for impeachment way back when. They’re busy working on the corrected version.
Well, the smug Democrats propose. Let’s see if they fair better than Napoleon did.
naliaka on March 7, 2007 at 9:19 PM
Uh, she couldn’t get out of jury duty, Bryan. What were you expecting?
Mark V. on March 7, 2007 at 9:22 PM
To add on to this Rush read an email form a Federal DA. The gist of the email was that the trial was lost in opening statements. Libby’s defense was that he was a scapegoat fora larger conspiracy even though he was not the leaker. That gave the jury the ability to beleive in the conspiracy. Him being a scapegoat was only mentioned during the opening statements and closing statements. It gave the jury the mental leverage to convict the conspiracy instead of the man.
Theworldisnotenough on March 7, 2007 at 9:23 PM
Chosen? This is a D.C. jury. All the prosecutor had to do was prove that Libby was a Republican.
spmat on March 7, 2007 at 9:26 PM
in this war, Republicans are gutless appeasers.
TheBigOldDog on March 7, 2007 at 9:27 PM
It’s apparent that the entire jury pool watched little Chrissy and Oblowhard every friggen’ night during the trial. These idiots are pathetic.
roninacreage on March 7, 2007 at 9:30 PM
Get your fifteen minutes of fame while you can…… IDIOT!
PinkyBigglesworth on March 7, 2007 at 9:30 PM
I’ll second that.
Now, you did mean the pathetic idiots included the jury pool, little Chrissy and Oblowhard, didn’t you?
Thought so.
fogw on March 7, 2007 at 9:35 PM
If judge Reggie Walton has even a sliver of honor, he will vacate the jury’s verdict, as it is obvious now that this was a tainted jury from the get go. If.
Only a moonbat could reasonably believe that Libby received a fair trial in light of the statements of this juror and the the one that spoke yesterday.
thirteen28 on March 7, 2007 at 9:54 PM
She is reprehensible! Fun?! She wasn’t on a jury for fun, a mans’ freedom was on the line and she’s talking about fun?! Some higher court judge has to dismiss this. How can you prosecute a guy for disagreeing about a phone conversation, that apparently didn’t happen sense Armatidge was the “leaker”. W.T.F.
Did the conversation Libby is being accused of lying about actually happen, sense he isn’t the leaker?
liquidflorian on March 7, 2007 at 9:56 PM
1. I was thinking the same thing when I heard the ex-reporter.
2. Why did they pick Janeane Garofalo?
This case has SOOOOOO many appealable offences it’s just flat crazy. I also call for the judge investigated.
- The Cat
MirCat on March 7, 2007 at 10:09 PM
She stated that she didn’t want Libby to go to jail, so why the hell did she vote to convict?
It’s obvious by the statements of some of the jurists that they only convicted Libby as a way to punish the Bush Administration, pure and simple. That makes it a tainted jury via political bias and there is ample ground to throw out the conviction. This verdict will be overturned, I have no doubt bout that. If Fitz wants to retry Libby he can but I don’t think that would happen.
RedinBlueCounty on March 7, 2007 at 10:11 PM
Heh. As it so happens, I’m on call for jury duty for federal District Court for the next two months. I don’t know if I could have gotten out of it or not, because I didn’t try to. I figure that it’s my duty as a citizen, plus I might be the only hope some poor bastard like Libby has. Staring down 11 other people won’t be a problem if it comes down to that, that much I can guarantee. Of course that’s if I ever get on a jury–sleazy defense lawyers don’t like people like me, not if their client is guilty, anyway.
ReubenJCogburn on March 7, 2007 at 10:20 PM
Ann Redington gets a well-deserved Aquanet Moment.
Nethicus on March 7, 2007 at 10:24 PM
She’s a total idiot, but let’s separate that from this:
There’s nothing inconsistent in voting to convict and wishing for a pardon. You can find that the evidence supports guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but still think that the guy shouldn’t do time. The “fun” part is idiocy, though.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on March 7, 2007 at 10:46 PM
In the TV-movie she will be played by Janeane Garofalo.
Jim Treacher on March 7, 2007 at 10:53 PM
New Revelations from Former ‘Wash Post’ Reportor/Libby Juror
Editor & Publisher ^ | March 07, 2007 | Joe Strupp
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003554336
Connie on March 7, 2007 at 11:03 PM
Bush tried to be a uniter not a divider by trusting those that Sun Tzu would have dismissed immediately. (Well, Sun Tzu would have killed, but we’re talking modernity here.)
Bush tried to unite the left and the right by keeping Tenant (what a freaking mistake) by pardoning Sandy Burglar (even bigger mistake) then appointing Fitzgerald…and we see what fruit that has borne.
Bush just doesn’t get that you can’t “respect” your enemies into being your friends…they will always hate you and try to hurt you. If you let them get close enough, they will kill you.
JustTruth101 on March 7, 2007 at 11:05 PM
Oh Ann, the hairclub for men called. They’d like their hairpiece back. They’re also willing to trade it for a brain. Might wanna take ‘em up on it.
thedecider on March 7, 2007 at 11:40 PM
Actually Attila you are not correct. A jury is empowered by common law to decide BOTH fact and law. For example… lets say that a law got passed somehow that makes it a crime, punishable by 10 years in prison for helping little old ladies across the street.
And you are on a jury that is deciding the fate of a person who has been proven to have broken that law…. for example there was a video of defendant helping the little old lady crossing the street, so his “guilt” is not in question.
The jury can still find the defendant NOT GUILTY based solely on the fact they believe the law in question is a BAD LAW. This also applies if they think the associated punishment is too harsh for the “crime.”
This is called Jury Nullification.
Maxx on March 8, 2007 at 12:28 AM
You can also look here regarding Jury Nullification…. this one is a better reference.
Maxx on March 8, 2007 at 12:39 AM
The jury spokeman was a writer for the W.P. ! !
Why was he not struck from the jury ? ?
A star struck jury with hopes of book deals.
Fitzgerald good, Ken Star bad. Klinton Good,
Liddy bad. Wilson , Plame Good. Cheney Bad.
NY Times good, FNC bad.
I’m getting depressed.
Texyank on March 8, 2007 at 12:40 AM
She already had a brain transplant…. she got Abby Normal’s brain.
Maxx on March 8, 2007 at 12:41 AM
I’m pleased to see that among the posters here some are raising substantive points. Libby will probable accept his fate calmly, knowing that he is innocent of any crime beyond that of being a Republican in President Bush’s White House. The Left’s BDS sometimes leaves out the ‘D’.
Doug on March 8, 2007 at 12:49 AM
Before Scooter can expect a pardon, he needs to get caught smuggling drugs in from Mexico.
If he can smuggle drugs, take a slug in the butt and help crucify BP agents, he’ll get a pardon for sure.
But since Libby is convicted of a much worse crime, that being the dreaded ‘Republican’, he’s screwed.
Speakup on March 8, 2007 at 1:09 AM
More like Libby will get a pardon but Ramos and Compean will not. The difference is that Libby didn’t impead the Mexican invasion or cross border free (drug) trade.
Buzzy on March 8, 2007 at 3:13 AM
I want these jurors to appear on Hannity.
I want the following question asked:
“In America, a man is guilty until PROVEN guilty. Since there was no “proof” that Libby lied, how do you sleep knowing that your hunch puts an man in jail?”
uptight on March 8, 2007 at 5:33 AM
I want these jurors to appear on Hannity.
I want the following question asked:
“In America, a man is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Since there was no “proof” that Libby lied, how do you sleep knowing that your hunch puts an man in jail?”
uptight on March 8, 2007 at 5:34 AM
Look, he did lie in front of the grand jury
He lied in front of a stupid jury
He got convicted
Even in aninvestigation that leads nowhere – you do not have the right to lie
Liby was an highly experienced atorney
EricPWJohnson on March 8, 2007 at 6:48 AM
The following is, in part, what I wrote to Clarice Feldman, yesterday.
Aunt B on March 8, 2007 at 6:53 AM
One more thing: Everyone – especially you, President Bush! – needs to read this, from J. Peter Mulhern.
Aunt B on March 8, 2007 at 7:04 AM
Wow! That’s some great info to have. It immediately made me feel that there was hope for our system that seems to be out of control. But then I realized that the moonbat lefties would probably be the majority on juries.
YIKES!
csdeven on March 8, 2007 at 7:14 AM
Jury of his peers, Bryan. Jury of his peers.
Remember, 50% of the population are below average intelligence. Stands to reason every jury will have a few like her.
BacaDog on March 8, 2007 at 7:17 AM
I have been called for jury duty twice, interviewed and dismissed. Does that make me more or less stupid than this woman?
Babs on March 8, 2007 at 7:35 AM
It means you’re honest.
csdeven on March 8, 2007 at 7:49 AM
Look all they (justice department and Fitz) had to do was check whether or not she was covert. It didn’t take an investigationa and interviewing so many people. If she wasn’t case closed.
Why is this so hard…for everyone…not just Fitz.
tomas on March 8, 2007 at 7:57 AM
Where in hell do they find people like that to sit on the jury.
I could perhaps see her saying something like that if she believed him INNOCENT in the first place and actually didn’t want to convict him — but perhaps was pressured on the jury to do so.
But… for FUN????? OMG.
Rick Donaldson on March 8, 2007 at 9:11 AM
On the off chance Neal is full of crap, I looked up the jury makeup:
honora on March 8, 2007 at 9:37 AM
From the “you can’t make this stuff up” file: when Clinton pardoned Mark Rich at the end of his term, guess who was the attornery representing him (Rich) in his quest for a pardon.
None other than one Scooter Libby. So on the plus side, Scoots knows the drill for petitioning for a pardon.
What are the odds….
honora on March 8, 2007 at 9:40 AM
She looks like she could be an author on Daily Kos.
amerpundit on March 8, 2007 at 9:44 AM
Thank you, Maxx. I’m quite aware of jury nullification, which is highly problematic in a free society governed by the rule of law.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on March 8, 2007 at 10:18 AM
Yes he is the neighbor of Tim “Meet the Depressed”
Potato headRussertWade on March 8, 2007 at 10:26 AM
Read Coulter’s take. Brilliant.
Valiant on March 8, 2007 at 10:30 AM
Coulter: “this is in Austin, Texas (the Upper West Side with better-looking people)”
If she just had the ability NOT to say everything that comes to her demented little mind, if you know what I mean, she could be pretty funny. I used to live on the Upper West Side, and that’s hilarious.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on March 8, 2007 at 11:13 AM
I’m so mad about this verdict that I’m shaking. In the meantime, we have William Jefferson caught red-handed with $90k in cash in bribes in his freezer and Sandy Burglar running around scott free. Where are the Republican cajones? Where? I’m tired of taking the high road. We need to take the gloves OFF! And Bush should definitely pardon Libby. Who cares what the LEFT THINKS?! They accused Pres. Bush of blowing up levees in New O, of orchestrating the 9/11 attacks, of causing Global Climate Change – Jeez – how could the accusations get any worse?!
foxforce91 on March 8, 2007 at 11:27 AM
They have none! Case in point the latest Ann Coulter bomb
Wade on March 8, 2007 at 12:51 PM
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Democraps try to bring Ann Coulter up on slander / defamation of character charges (or terrorism for her “bomb throwing” at Silky Pony).
And why isn’t Silky Pony as derogatory/offensive as faggot?
omnipotent on March 8, 2007 at 1:14 PM
THAT is the $63,000 question.
csdeven on March 8, 2007 at 3:14 PM
Comment pages: