Libby's conviction an indication of how much Bush and his war are hated
 

Check out the jury's profile on the NY Times. These are smart, accomplished people. A PhD ecoomist/investment banker, retired Washington Post reporter, a web designer for the General Services Administration, a retired math teacher. All are on this level. Okay, there is one lawyer. But still, an unusually educated and accomplished group.

I see this in part as a ringing condemnation of Bush and his war. I'm sure Libby did try to obstruct justice to cover up for his boss Cheney, but jurors always are motivated by the big picture, themes, overarching equities.

of course if you
 

go read cougarboard the jury is incredibly dumb.

i think this conviction definately points to something more sinister

Including this guy who thinks the CB crowd were better-informed than the jury:

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=2529881

yeah, i saw that
 

that is an exceptionally strange position to take.

where do these people come from?

What crime did Bush/Cheney/Rove et. all commit that Libby was covering up for?

Let me get this straight.

Cougarboard is saying that this is a witchhunt and the jury had no regard for the facts of the case.

SU is saying that the jury was motivated to find Libby guilty because they disapprove of Bush and the war.

It looks like two different ways of phrasing the same idea.

if they were guiltless
 

why was scooter lying?

Doesn't have to be to cover up a crime. Lying under oath is a crime nonetheless. He was lying to protect his boss Cheney from at least political embarrassment. He may not have been thinking crime. So what?

Honest, intelligent and balanced juries aren't slaves to the facts or the jury instructions. But they "get it right" a lot more often than judges do. They do equity and justice in a common sense kind of way that is a product of the heart and the gut blended with the intellect. They believe sincerely in unversal justice and aim sincerely for that. A good trial lawyer always helps them to see the larger stakes.

Well, this is the same guy that argued yesterday that Clarence Thomas is the best judge on the supreme court. So take it for what it's worth.