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.
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?