I want to make comment about the Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby trial. This will have nothing to do with the verdict.
I wasn’t there. I don’t have all the facts. The trial was incredibly politicized, These are all things I’ve worked to keep out of my blog.
There was, however, one part of the procedure which struck me when I read an article in Editor and Publisher.
If I ever go to court, that’s what I want to hear – the jury was involved and thorough. It’s something I think we often feel isn’t there.
A few years ago, while tuning past C-Span on a boring Sunday night I had audio tapes of Supreme Court proceedings. It was a similar feeling.
I had no idea what the particulars of the case were, but I heard intelligent men and women pondering the facts with well thought questions and comments.
Cousin Michael, who reads the blog and who clerked in the US Circuit Court might write otherwise, but these comments from the Libby trial and my ‘eavesdropping’ on the Supremes, gives me optimism our republic is built on a solid foundation.
Or maybe I’m just naive. I hope not.
Quoting an observation I read elsewhere earlier today: just how did a Washington Post journalist and author of a book on spying (i.e. what Valerie Plame used to do for a living) make it through voir dire?!? I find that almost as mind-boggling as the fact that the jury actually was deliberate in its deliberations.
Since you mentioned me, I feel I ought to respond. I