If only that were the way things actually worked on juries. Don't take my word for it, read the jury's own words:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003554231 The jury, among other things, speculated that they would have liked to see Cheney and Bush both testify. They had nothing to do with the perjury case, why would they testify? I think this statement by the jury is going to make it very easy for the defense to argue that the jury was politically biased and punished Libby for what they saw as the pecadillos of the Administration. On 3/6/07, Gruss wrote: > > > RoMunn wrote: > > ah, the inconvenient truth > > > > 1.) Not things legal are right and moral. Not all things illegal are > wrong and immoral. ( I vote for a country with fewer laws so this > principle takes on special meaning for me. Return to common sense > 'soccer rules' and lose our current litigious society!) > > 2.) Libby was NOT charged with with leaking classified data. > > 3.) Libby WAS charged with lying to federal investigators; which is a > crime no matter what he was lying about. > > Think about it: let's say we eliminate that law. What's to stop you > from lying under oath? Nothing. That means no truth. No truth means > no justice. No justice means no rule of law. No rule of law means > anarchy. > > The only person that would make the "inconvenient truth" argument is, > therefore, an anarchist. Is that what you is? Is you one o' them > an-arks? -- --------------- Robert Munn www.funkymojo.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7 Experience Flex 2 & MX7 integration & create powerful cross-platform RIAs http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/ Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:229594 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
