"I certainly hope the (Moussaoui defense team) doesn't (make a motion for acquittal at the conclusion of the Government's case)brilliant. let's hope the judge disallows the motion.
I've been wondering if disgruntled civil servants in the DoJ and the FBI have been intentionally sabotaging the gov't's case here in order to let the defense call witnesses that can speak truth about 9/11. In other words, while I am sure that Gonzales and Bush would like to see Moussaoui die, they'd much rather like less to see certain witnesses testify at this trial. I think the whole TSA flap was a preemptive strike to not only protect AA and UAL, but also to just get the whole trial shut down so the defense couldn't cross-examine gov't witnesses/introduce their own witnesses that question the events of 9/11.
Consider how eager Agent Samit testified to the FBI's "incompetence" yesteday, on CROSS for cryin' out loud. Normally a gov't witness would begrudgingly admit certain flaws in the gov't's case, and usually would qualify any statements. Doesn't sound like Samit did this yesterday.
If I were the defense, I would not make the motion, cause I know that the jury's already on my side. Then I'd bring out the REAL big guns.
Unfortunately, I think Moussaoui's lawyer is bound by ethical standards TO make this motion (it would be bordering on malpractice if he didn't). So maybe again, the whole purpose of sabotaging the gov't's case was to prevent the defense from calling damaging witnesses."
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Moussaoui's dismissal motion
* viget:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Thx for the continued props lukery!
I wonder about how the judge would rule here. Part of me thinks she might just agree with such a motion and enter a verdict of not guilty, given how frustrated she is with the gov't's shenanigans.
But then again, if she knew, you know, wink-wink, nod-nod, that the defense would have some very interesting info from their witnesses that the public might want to know about, she might very well let the case go along.
She's already surprised me once with allowing the case to continue after that TSA lawyer's flap. She's also expressed public skepticism about the strength of the gov't's case. Why let this farce of justice continue? I can only conclude that it's because she thinks that the defense has something worthy to say.
i hope yuo are right viget - that would certainly be a turnip for the books...
fingers x'd
Post a Comment