Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   Reuters "reports" that today is Scooter Libby's "last chance to convince a jury he is not guilty." In related news, the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" taps Reuters on the shoulder, says "ahem"   (news.yahoo.com) divider line
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

196 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Feb 2007 at 4:59 PM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



43 Comments     (+0 »)
 
2007-02-20 3:51:15 PM  
So, about that non-existant liberal bias in the media...

/not sayin he's right or wrong
//but sayin the media is biased
///all of it
 
2007-02-20 3:58:10 PM  
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney will have a last chance to convince a jury he is not guilty of perjury...

wow. shouldn't basic civics be a mandatory course for a journalism degree?
 
2007-02-20 4:00:33 PM  
I expect Libby will be found not guilty. His schedule was packed enough in that period of time that it'll be easy to instill reasonable doubt that he's not just a lying, leaky douche.
 
2007-02-20 4:02:27 PM  
grandjedimasterbill: So, about that non-existant liberal bias in the media...

Reuters isn't an American news service, so their writer probably doesn't understand our legal system.
 
2007-02-20 4:16:14 PM  
Despite what the civics books say, most jurors go into trials with a presumption of guilt for the defendant.
 
2007-02-20 4:19:03 PM  
Reuters isn't an American news service, so their writer probably doesn't understand our legal system.

then it would be quite silly to place such a reporter on the American political or judiciary beat
 
2007-02-20 4:22:35 PM  
It's true aint it?
 
2007-02-20 4:26:35 PM  
shouldn't basic civics be a mandatory course for a journalism degree?

I work for a media news outlet (and I'm really getting a kick...) and honestly, most of these reporters are lazy idiots. They don't verify stories, they don't do basic research. The reporter who regularly covers technology makes Romero look like an MCSE.
 
2007-02-20 4:29:23 PM  
HumbleGod: is schedule was packed enough in that period of time that it'll be easy to instill reasonable doubt that he's not just a lying, leaky douche.

If he forgot (misremembered) 1,2, or even 3 conversations with reporters than maybe. But there are 9 separate instances where his recollection was directly contradicted.

Hard for a jury to discount that many.
 
2007-02-20 4:38:19 PM  
I hope he is convicted. But, proving a Bush administration official is too dumb to remember anything should be a breeze. He will walk.

If he is convicted, he will turn on Cheney and Rove. That's when the party heats up.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2007-02-20 4:40:08 PM  
Technically, his chance came and went last week when he did not testify in his defense. It's up to his lawyer now.
 
2007-02-20 5:11:18 PM  
obviously subby is not living in a post-9/11 world. Everyone is guilty if the government says so. That's why they don't need fair trials and warrants.
duh.
 
2007-02-20 5:15:50 PM  
I hope he indict Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld. Those traitors.
 
2007-02-20 5:16:28 PM  
i pray every day that scooter receives maximum mistreatment while in prison. a neocon deserves no less.
 
2007-02-20 5:18:34 PM  
albo: wow. shouldn't basic civics be a mandatory course for a journalism degree?

Yeah. Fox News would shut down if this was the case.
 
2007-02-20 5:18:58 PM  
lolmao666: I hope he indict Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld. Those traitors.

That's a distinct possibility. When Fitzgerald went after the former governor of Illinois, he didn't start off at the top. He went for the small fish and worked his way up. A lot of glory-hound prosecutors will try to throw their target right into the pressure cooker, Fitzgerald puts his in the pot and gradually turns it to boiling. By the time they start to see bubbles it's too late.
 
2007-02-20 5:23:39 PM  
moops

i pray every day that scooter receives maximum mistreatment while in prison. a neocon deserves no less.


Moops: (In other words)

He's innocent until proven guilty, unless he's a neocon.
 
2007-02-20 5:24:18 PM  
the prosecution had its chance to prove he was guilty, why shouldn't he have a chance to prove he's not guilty?

why do you hate america?
 
2007-02-20 5:25:51 PM  
grandjedimasterbill: So, about that non-existant liberal bias in the media...

Nope, not exactly. There's a money bias.
And right now, the money for a lot of them is in "taking a side". When appropriate, they will switch.
 
2007-02-20 5:27:05 PM  
Prosecutor: tries to convince jury defendant is guilty
Defendant, or his lawyers: tries to convince jury defendant is not guilty.

Is that so difficult to understand, smitty?
 
2007-02-20 5:27:12 PM  
the media does this all the time. I don't see it as partisan, but simply sensationalizing.

it's more dramatic if libby is guilty. it's that simple.
 
2007-02-20 5:28:35 PM  
Yeah subby, that's what a defendant in a trial by jury does, he tries to convince the jury he's not guilty, and the prosecution tries to convince it that he is.

And until the jury renders its verdict otherwise, the defendant is not officially guilty.

What is your damn point?
 
2007-02-20 5:39:22 PM  
And I tap the Subby on the shoulder and point out the real phrase is " PRESUMED innocent until proven guilty"

which does not mean the accused is either innocent or guilty. Their actions at the time of the charged offence make them that; and a jury verdict either way merely alters their status in the eyes of the law, it does not alter reality. All that phrase means is that the defendant is entitled to a legal presumption to that effect when his case is considered

In other words, all that poor abused phrase"{presumed} innocent until proven guilty" means is that the jury is legally required to assume the defendant is innocent unless they unanimously decide that prosecution has proven otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. However, what the jury is required to assune for the purposes of their deliberation is not binding on the rest of us.


If I see some one gun down a playground full of kids on live TV, and then promptly get tackled by the police and taken into custody; I KNOW that person is guilty of the crime, even if his jury is required to presume otherwise.
 
2007-02-20 5:41:10 PM  
I'm so sick of this innocent until proven guilty crap. That only applies in CRIMINAL COURT. oh...right.
 
2007-02-20 5:46:55 PM  
Well... reading about jury reactions from the past couple weeks, I would have to say that Libby is probably going to be found guilty.

Not that it matters, since Bush is going to pardon him.
 
2007-02-20 5:53:12 PM  
Submitter, grandjedimasterbill, please do a little research before posting not-so-bright headlines and comments.

This is an obvious case of cry-baby conservatives reading into a statement of the facts as being 'biased' against them. Let me explain why:

Prosecutors made a case why Libby is guilty. Libby didn't make much of a defense. Therefore, he still has to make such an argument, as the article points out, or else he will be found guilty.

The article did not say he was guilty. It just stated the fact that he still had to make the case that he was not guilty.

No bias. Accept it and quit your biatching.
 
2007-02-20 5:59:58 PM  
[snicker and point at Corvus]
 
2007-02-20 6:05:26 PM  
Corvus

Sometimes I wonder if there was better reading comprehension in this country if their would be lots less Republicans.

Sometimes I wonder if there were less cases of autism in this country, if there would be lots less Democrats.
 
2007-02-20 6:06:50 PM  
Corvus
Sometimes I wonder if there was better reading comprehension in this country if their would be lots less Republicans.

I have been trying to lobby the Georgia Department of Education to make critical thinking a requirement for graduation. The few responses I have gotten have been to the effect of, "Why would children need to learn that?"
 
2007-02-20 6:15:29 PM  
This liberal victory cake is delicious! Will Cheney be next?
 
2007-02-20 6:43:01 PM  
Wow, it appears that a subsection of the population is for due process all of a sudden when it's one of their own. These same folks have been telling me the past few years that civil rights and due process is for suckas.

Anyway, Retuers is right in a way: when going in front of a jury, you have to convince them you're not guilty. That's why you're on trial, right?
 
2007-02-20 6:45:42 PM  
Kar98: Prosecutor: tries to convince jury defendant is guilty
Defendant, or his lawyers: tries to convince jury defendant is not guilty.

Is that so difficult to understand, smitty?


Uh, no. It's more like this:

Prosecutor: Has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Defendant: Does not have to prove anything, much less prove innocence; merely has to demonstrate reasonable doubt.

The burden of proof is on the prosecutor. Always has been. The defendant enjoys presumptive innocence until and unless prosecutor PROVES guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
 
2007-02-20 6:49:58 PM  
More like good reporting. Does anyone who's actually been following this case truly believe it's Libby's case to lose anymore? It's gone that badly.
 
2007-02-20 6:53:23 PM  
2007-02-20 06:45:42 PM MyNameIsNotMervGriffin [TotalFark]


Uh, no. It's more like this:

Prosecutor: Has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Defendant: Does not have to prove anything, much less prove innocence; merely has to demonstrate reasonable doubt.The burden of proof is on the prosecutor. Always has been. The defendant enjoys presumptive innocence until and unless prosecutor PROVES guilt beyond reasonable doubt.


actually just to amplify that:


Prosecutor: Has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Defendant: Does not have to do got-damned thing his right ot reamin silent is also constitutionally assured
 
2007-02-20 6:54:43 PM  
OriginallyDC: This is an obvious case of cry-baby conservatives reading into a statement of the facts as being 'biased' against them.

Submitter here. This is a case of me having noticed a very, VERY poorly written lede. Or I should say yet another journalistic miscarriage from our buddies at Reuters.

I do not presume to decide whether some sort of liberal bent influenced this. I say merely that it shows an appalling lack of rigor, professionalism and knowledge of American jurisprudence.

And the excuse I just saw offered about how Reuters is based in Europe won't wash for two reasons:

1. Presumptive innocence is hardly a foreign concept to Britons, and

2. The stringer who submitted this story is almost certainly an American citizen.

As Theaetetus already mentioned, the issue here isn't bias--these guys aren't intelligent enough to intelligently promote a bias in the first place. The real issue is how shoddy, sloppy and lazy the media is getting.
 
2007-02-20 6:58:13 PM  
Magorn: actually just to amplify that:

Good point.

The fact that this is the Scooter Libby trial is irrelevent--or should be.

I suspect the stringer has already tried and convicted the guy in his head. That's totally his right. Keeping his writing from getting sloppy and inaccurate is his JOB.

I suspect, but I don't care that much what motivated it. It's just inexcusably bad writing. I'd say the same thing if I'd seen a similar lede during the Clinton hearings or Sandy Berger's hearings.

These guys blur the line between news and commentary so much they don't even notice when they're crossing it. It's embarrassing for those of us journalists trying to keep the bar high.
 
2007-02-20 7:00:33 PM  
submitter: Reuters "reports" that today is Scooter Libby's "last chance to convince a jury he is not guilty." In related news, the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" taps Reuters on the shoulder, says "ahem"

And the rules of criminal procedure tap subby on the shoulder and say, "Dumbass."

The prosecution goes first. It proves the defendant should be guilty. That switches the burden to the Defendant to rebut the proof and prove it doesn't prove anything. Then the Prosecution sums it up to the jury, then the defendant has to convince the jury that he is not guilty by explaining how the proof doesn't prove what the prosecution says it does. So, in essence, the quote in the headline above is entirely accurate, assuming no mistrial.
 
2007-02-20 8:23:47 PM  
Abagadro: Despite what the civics books say, most jurors go into trials with a presumption of guilt for the defendant.

"Aw, jury duty? I'll see that Quimby kid hanged for this!"

/Too Obscure?
 
2007-02-20 8:25:04 PM  
This is "his last chance to convince a jury he is not guilty". It ISN'T "his last chance to convince a jury he is innocent". The two mean different things.
 
2007-02-20 9:10:20 PM  
I don't know what country you guys are in but its been "guilty till proven innocent" in the US since I was born.
 
2007-02-20 9:33:43 PM  
subby, you seem to not have much in the way of critical thinking skills, nor do you seem to have much understanding of what actually goes on in the courtroom.

In a trial, the defendant starts with a presumption of innocence. This is true. However, when the prosecution establishes guilt beyond what appears to be a reasonable doubt with its case (as Fitzgerald has done; Libby has been caught "misremembering" on nine separate occasions), using an overwhelming amount of evidence, for all practical purposes the defense must then prove innocence, or at least reasonable doubt, by interjecting uncertainty.

The Reuters reporter is functionally correct. The evidence against Libby is extensive, and it is damning. Today was the last chance he had to somehow poke holes in that evidence, and he almost certainly will not be able to.
 
2007-02-21 1:11:03 AM  
Fark It:

Bingo. From Fitzgerald's rebuttal:

4:31

One more thing that corrborates. THe VP wrote week before that wife sent him on a junket. THe VP moves to number 1 talking point. You just think it's coincidence that Cheney was writing this.

There is a cloud over the VP. He wrote those columns, he had those meetings, He sent Libby off to the meeting with Judy. Where Plame was discussed. That cloud remains because the denfendant obstructed justice. That cloud was there. That cloud is something that we just can't pretend isn't there.


5:09

Is this about a bunch of madmen, two men. Or is about somemthing bigger, Is it about someone to whom Wilson's wife wasn't a person, but an argument. He focused on it June 23, July 8, July 7, focused on it when he talked to Addington. His boss thought it was important. His boss thought it was important. Did his boss forget about the wife/ One of the first thing he wrote, did his wife send him on a junket. They both talked to a briefer about it. You can't believe that 9 witnesses remember 10 conversations the same way. There is no conspiracy. There is no memory problem. He remembers a conversatoin that did not happen. But forgets all of his. He had a motive to lie, and he lied in a way that exactly matches his motive. You don't forget something on Thursday that you've passed along on Monday and Tueday. You don't forget about important arguments. You know they talked about a cloud over the VP.,

DONT YOU THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE ENTITELD TO ANSWERS.
If as a result his wife had a job, she worked at CPD, She gets dragged into newspapers. People want to find out was a law broken when people want to know, who did it. What role did Defendant play. What role did VP play? He told you he may have discussed this with VP. Don't you think FBI desesrves straight answers. When you go in taht jury room, you commonsense will tell you hthat he made a gamble. He threw sand sin the eyes o fthe FBI. He stole the truth of the judicial system. You return guilty you give truth back.
 
2007-02-21 2:58:58 PM  
LocalCynic: Reuters isn't an American news service, so their writer probably doesn't understand our legal system.

Years of watching literally dozens of Hollywood movies have given their reporters keen insight not only into our legal system, but all areas of American life. This is why I keenly await their suggestion on which Presidential candidate should be elected in 2008.

/Sorry, pet peeve of mine.
 
Displayed 43 of 43 comments


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.