Martin L. Shoemaker (www):
I think you just flooded Orient Lodge, Matthew. I got through once, but I can't get through again.
2.26.2007 11:09am
Dave Schuler (mail) (www):
Apparently, a juror has been dismissed for “being exposed to media coverage” of the trial. At this point they're going to continue with 11 jurors.
2.26.2007 11:31am
Dave Schuler (mail) (www):
2.26.2007 11:33am
TallDave (mail) (www):
In related news, none of the ACTUAL outings of real CIA operatives by the LAT and NYT are being prosecuted.

What a travesty.
2.26.2007 12:16pm
Dean Esmay:
I find it fascinating that they'd go forward with 11. Isn't this exactly what alternate jurors are for?
2.26.2007 12:20pm
Ronald Coleman (mail) (www):
Of course the defense is pursuing jury nullification.
2.26.2007 12:39pm
Publius Rex (mail) (www):
Isn't jury nullification all they ever had?

It's pretty clear that he lied to the grand jury, especially once they started the I'm busy I forgot angle. That just seemed so silly. Fine I forgot about the salad dressing I had at lunch on the 27th. That is forgettable, but not nepotism was involved in setting up the guy who is beating me over the head with this information. Even if you grant that he was mistaken the first time, unless it is intentional forgetfulness you correct the record on try number two, not 5 or 6, or the trial you've "mistakenly" gotten yourself into at that point.
2.26.2007 2:47pm
Martin L. Shoemaker (www):

...but not nepotism was involved in setting up the guy who is beating me over the head with this information.


Maybe it's not nearly so memorable if you discard the unproven assertion that anyone is "setting up" anyone.
2.26.2007 2:53pm
Publius Rex (mail) (www):
Since it seems likely that the identity of the juror will become known and could appear on cable news as early as this evening, I'll offer a two part prediction and a points award to the eventual winner.

For 15,000 points which way was the juror leaning and what media outlet will be the first to give him/her airtime?


The juror would have voted to convict and will emerge gloriously onto the scene on the Keith Olberman Circus Show.
2.26.2007 2:55pm
David C (mail):
"Isn't jury nullification all they ever had?"

It seems to me that they would have an extremely good case for overturning a conviction on appeal. If the judge excludes all evidence about whether an underlying crime was committed, how can that not be error?
2.26.2007 3:00pm
Publius Rex (mail) (www):

Maybe it's not nearly so memorable if you discard the unproven assertion that anyone is "setting up" anyone.


I don't buy into the setup theory either. Never thought this should have gone to a grand jury. Don't thinkn he should have been prosecuted, but do think he is solely to blame for being prosecuted.

I still think the political operative in him was salavating a little when he heard. Having info others don't have is better than sex, oil, and gold combined for someone in the position of Chief of Staff.
2.26.2007 3:01pm
Ronald Coleman (mail) (www):
David C., I'm not sure it is error. It against the law to lie to a grand jury, period. It doesn't matter where the investigation goes or whether it was a bad idea in the first place. It's not different in this sense to the Clinton impeachment.
2.26.2007 9:56pm
Account:
Password:
Remember info?
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.

Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.

Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.