We need to address the psychology of the their campaign of terror. We need to crack the code in their war of rhetoric. This country is caught in the grip of a quiet hysteria of fear. Humor and reason have done nothing to stop this murderous crowd because they have employed their Doctors of Psychology to use the wisdom of the social sciences against us. The CIA has done it elsewhere: I think of David Atlee Philips campaign of terror in Chile leading up to the overthrow of Allende. Read about “the quartered man, ” a cartoon-like figure who kept cropping up in the press concurrently with body parts being found floating in Chile’s waterways. Why not here? Of course here! They are constantly working on us, drilling us, filling the airwaves with banality and misinformation with the desired effect of pummeling and numbing us. We have a Constitution that allows us to wrest control of the likes of the Bush Crime Family and yet the critical mass of us retreats into disturbed complacency. I appeal to Pach and others with a background in psychology to help find the words to break through this psychic miasma. “We need a physician for the human condition, don’t need no politician to make my day.”

If I were on the jury, I’d be doing just what they are doing. Take all the evidence, and proceed one step at a time.
I believe the jury probably enjoying their “Sherlock Holmes” approach. Good for them!
I don’t care if they take a month. They know this is, by now, an indictment of this whole crooked administration.
I hope they really cross their “T’s” and dot their “I’s”.
I think the wait will be worth it!

Here! Here! or is it Hear! Hear! – someone got a dictionary?

A snapshot of a now that will live into its own future.

Your powers of observation and wordsmithing are a fine pairing.

Mahalo.

For those who are interested, I will give a considered, respectful and (I hope) reasonable expression of my opinion (knowing I am a conservative)- for those not interested in such, please just skip.

I suspect the word the juror wants defined is “obstruction”. I have gien this a lot of thought, and I think on each other count there is “reasonable” doubt. However, as I like to think of myself as a “non-wingnut” conservative, there IS a certain smell about all this. I have reasonable doubt about each of the single conversations in the indictment, but there is a mass of evidence that, at the VERY least, Libby was not helpful in his “cooperation”. I personally don’t put much stock in the testimony of Russert or Cooper, but I can’t escape the feeling that something not quite “kosher” went down here. On the other hand, I hope if the jury does convict, they do so on much more solid evidence than a feeling that something here is rotten. I wouldn’t want to go to jail on someone’s “feelings”.

This is offered in good faith with no evil intention. I will not argue; this is my opinion and if it offends you, please just more on. Thanks!

I agree with the sentiments but it is 9 he saids to 1, the only other problem is Libby memory arguments which don’t seem credible to me, but I would have to admit I would probably be too biased to serve on this jury.

This does seem to point out the problem with doing each count separately, since it is 1 he said vs. 1 she said in each case. Though they do indirectly support each other.

I suspect the word the juror wants defined is “obstruction”. I have gien this a lot of thought, and I think on each other count there is “reasonable” doubt. However, as I like to think of myself as a “non-wingnut” conservative, there IS a certain smell about all this. I have reasonable doubt about each of the single conversations in the indictment, but there is a mass of evidence that, at the VERY least, Libby was not helpful in his “cooperation”. I personally don’t put much stock in the testimony of Russert or Cooper, but I can’t escape the feeling that something not quite “kosher” went down here. On the other hand, I hope if the jury does convict, they do so on much more solid evidence than a feeling that something here is rotten. I wouldn’t want to go to jail on someone’s “feelings”.

This is offered in good faith with no evil intention. I will not argue; this is my opinion and if it offends you, please just more on. Thanks!

I think they should have been sequestered, now imagine another weekend for them to lose another juror.

in addition to being illuminating about the CIPA process, (& how it pertains to this stage of the case), i also appreciated these last 2 posts for their potential to remedy the posts borne of impatience.

there’s a huge spotlight on this website & all of us supporters right now, & it’s growing wider every minute we get closer to a verdict due to all the press it’s been receiving, (nyt). hopefully more ppl will come to understand why the wheels of our justice system turn slowly, via your informative posts.

best ~