Echoes from Nuremberg, the Guantanamo trials, and DoD's Hynes "directive" to the US prosecutors at Guantanamo, "There will be no acquittals":

there is the appearance of a win at all costs mentality.

The US government has already committed war crimes to secure unreliable evidence to support their legal objectives. A few FBI browbeating Jurists seems with the scope of this President's tolerance levels. He was "only" the decider, not the one doing the browbeating.

Why is this not illegal ? Where is the firewall between law enforcement & a fair impartial jury ?
Especially in a hung jury that was already questioning the political motivation of the prosecutor ? Did USA Buchanon send the agents over there ? What is the SAC 's involvemeny in this ?
Finallly are we really slip sliding toward a police state in these United States?

What did the agents say or do to the jurors to make them feel intimidated?

Contrast this with what happened when evidence emerged showing the members of the Siegelman jury who favored conviction had exchanged email messages discussing how to pressure the holdouts into voting for conviction. No investigation, nothing, it was all fine. What is the difference? They finally got a conviction after twice coming back deadlocked. The message is clear. Vote for a conviction or get harassed by the FBI afterwards. It is time for citizens to start refusing to serve on juries because they fear this response if they vote not guilty.

Do the FBI Agents in Pittsburgh have nothing better to do than secretarial duties for the US Attorney's office? Why would FBI managers allow this to go on?

White House implicated.

Contrary to the US Attorneys office personnel's statments, the FBI agents and US Attorney did not, repeat NOT talk with the jurors in the court room. They went to their homes. This is highly irregular.

Some people have argued it was Buchanan alone who directed this review by the FBI. That makes no sense. At worst, Buchanan is tainted because she, as a US Attorney, failed: This case was something she had a stake in. We're asked to believe Buchanan, on her own, acted like DOJ OPR or DOJ IG, to review a case under her control. Buchanan is in no position, on her own, to decide FBI agents need to do an after-action review of her case. Buchanan asks us to believe the absurd notion that US Attorneys, who largely ignore issues, suddenly are concerned. This suggests Buchanan is being deceptive, hiding the real catalyst for her asserted decision. The decision is likely at a different level.

Buchanan needs to put a story together: Why, after which discussion, did she suddenly "direct" the FBI agents not under her control to do something very unusual; and with whom in DOJ and the US Attorneys office did Buchanan "coordinate" her "decision" and the FBI answers/findings? A top-down decision from the White House is the answer.

This is the same non-sense as the US Attorney firings, and the LA Ethics Unit Disbandment: White House is the common element. Stop listening to this non-sense in the media or from Buchanan: Make her appear before the House Judiciary under oath, and then go after the DOJ workflows related to the media reports of the FBI interviews. Apply the lessons of the US Attorney Firings to this.

The most reasonable conclusion, at this juncture: The FBI was sent in, at the direction of the White House, to conduct intelligence for the White House and legal counsel.

Ya'll know that one of the Democratic nominees has taught Constitutional Law at an ivy league school - The other nominee from the Democratic Primary affirms her proudest moments in life have been of counsel for the Children's Defense Fund .
We must get both of these nominee contenders on record for all the impeachable offenses committed by this immoral neoskum Administration . We've got several more months to get them both tuned in to the outrage we are feeling .
Testing you are right the Bush Regieme is using the FBI to intimidate jurors in the Wecht matter,on orders from the Whitehouse..
It seems the last constitutional guarantee left intact & availble to me is my Second Admendment - And as that great American Charlton Heston stated for the rest of the NRA membership " They ( the governnment) can TAKE our second amendment rights when they pry them from our cold dead fingers " ( I paraphrase but )
This is an issue that is bedrock to all Americans -I have many liberterian friends that also are outraged by this Putsche .
Fomer Congressman Bob Barr who has called for impeaching both bUSH & cHENEY is now the Liberterian Candidate for President - we need to use his campaign as a vehicle to get the word out about this illegal attack on our basic Rights as a Free People ...
PS Barr was part of the "impeach bill for the bj possse-" & is a former field agent for the CIA - I think he would be a wonderful special prosecutor to sic on this bunch after the next administration takes office !!

I'm wondering if the FBI Agents responsible for the case were eager to find out what else they had to prove and volunteered to make these calls to help get the jurors' cooperation. It doesn't sound plausible that the US Attorney would try to order them to make the calls to the jurors. Orders would come from an FBI manager and an order has to be work related. How could making calls to former jurors possibly be within the scope of an FBI Special Agent's duties, unless there are allegations of a crime involving the jurors themselves? Was the intent to inspire cooperation by misleading them into thinking they were being investigated?

Bushicide. I'm from Pittsburgh, I know the law, I understand the administrative barriers between the DOJ and FBI, I know this case, and I'm sorry but the testing guy is flat out wrong.

My biggest concern is because people such as testing are pushing so hard for this situation to be about the White House and Bush directly, they are going to let an extremely corrupt and dangerous prosecutor such as Mary Beth Buchanan have a pass. This lady is worst than Ashcroft and Gonzalez combined.

The situation basically is that Buchanan saw the writing on the wall that Bush and Co. wanted to go after Democrats. She then decided to start a string of cases which this Wecht case is apart of. Now the case has blown up and she is using resources as best she can to attempt to patch things together.

Talking to jurors after a trial is not illegal at all. Sending the FBI to do it is in poor taste and can be seen as intimidation, but it is not illegal. The local FBI can be utilized for the requests of the local US Attorney.

I'm sorry that my opinions and the facts don't align with the great Bush witchhunt. I just do not wish to see people that are not informed push angles of a story that are not there and alleged assertions which are not fact that result in real criminals getting a pass.

GSB 27 .
If all what you say is true -there is still one underlying fact that cannot be denied -this wHITE House hand picked political USAs such as Buchanon to go after the Democrats hammer & tong .
Recall that when Ms Simpson asserted down in Alabama that Karl Rove asked that state USA to go after a sitting Democratic Governor - that implicated a senoir adviser to POTUS. Recall also that Ms Simpson's house also was burned too the ground -with no suspects taken into custody.
It does not take a matrix or a polled jury to see the tracks of the Whitehouse in many many of these controversies.
GSB 27 don't take me & testings word for the wHITEHOUSE meddling go ask Carol Lamm or David Iglesias- And we are not on a Bush witch hunt - we simply want our country back from these criminals ...

These links send you to a local paper op-ed as well as letters to the editor on the case. It pretty much speaks to the predominant sentiment in Pittsburgh about this one.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08104/872531-149.stm
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08104/872530-35.stm

Ok, Testing, jury polling is the process of asking each juror to say where they stood on the case. You ask the juror did you vote guilty or not guilty. It is a method to understand where the jury which is hung stands on the case.

Testing, I sat for about ten minutes and started to prepare a response, however after the response became over forty pages of citations to how you are incorrect, I thought it best to not post and simply point out the outright error.

Basically, your argument is that the information on jurors is protected from the prosecution, defense, and public. It is unfortunately not. The information on jurors is provided to the prosecution and defense upon the seating of the jury. The information on jurors is provided to the public as part of the public record. This information includes names, addresses, occupation, etc.

Unless an anonymous jury is seated, which did not occur in this situation, all the information is available to the public. Sorry, I am not going to post something that should be known already if you did your research on this issue.

PLEASE STOP POSTING YOUR IDIOTIC RESPONSES THAT PROVIDE NO CASE LAW OR CITATION TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT.

Your postings to date have been one of common practice by individuals that lack an argument.

You write dubious, unsubstantiated, etc. hoping no one sees these exact errors in your argument. You then add Red Herrings such as WMD and 9/11 because keeping on topic about "Why a US Attorney sent the FBI to talk with Jurors" is out of your scope of reasoning.

Then if your diversion tactics have failed, you attempt to argue that the messenger, myself, is somehow against the review of the US Attorney's actions in this case which fails to take into account that I was the individual who posted the link to the article in question on the jurors concerns over the FBI contacting them on a previous TPMMuckraker blog posting and stated that TPM should do an article on it.

Response to Testing:
OK, SO THIS IS YOUR ARGUMENT:
The issue has to do with the speed the FBI and US Attorney were able to move; and how quickly the US Attorney was able to secure DOJ Staff concurrence to direct an FBI interview (not a jury poll) of jury members at their homes.
HERE IS THE ACTUAL ARGUMENT BEING DEBATED IN THE PRESS AND BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS:
The issue has to do with the decision to utilize FBI agents to schedule and be apart of the interviews of the jurors.
The concern of such practice is that the use of the FBI in this manner can be viewed as intimidating to some (in my opinion most) people when it becomes public and this same public body has the potential future jurors of the second trial within it. It is a reasonable view that such tactics by the FBI would become public due to the media attention and coverage on this case.
The issue does not have to do with the speed of such actions at all. If you review the information on the case that is available, you will realize that the jurors were out for over three weeks on this case and had stated by the end of week two that they were hopelessly deadlock. The decision to immediately initiate interviews and polling of the jurors after the trial verdict was rendered (and if it was a hung jury) was surely made well prior to the decision on the final day of jury deliberations. This view is an assumption on my part, yet since the Assistant US Attorney made the call to ask for a retrial in less than five minutes after the judge ruled a mistrial, it is a fair assumption. The Assistant US Attorney surely did not request a retrial without first getting the approval of US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan.
Here is what is wrong with your lasted posting
FIRST: You have posted nothing to support any of your arguments to date. Instead, you have posted assertions that are not substantiated or have posted comments on Gitmo, 9/11, WMD that are not related to the topic at hand. It is also very amusing that you post links to your other comments that have nothing in them of substance at all. A link to your other comments is not a link to source material.
SECOND: You once again overlook the fact that the information on the jurors is fully available to the public, the prosecution, and the FBI. To date, you provide no information how such information on this case has been sealed opposed to the standard practices of the court. I recommend that you review the articles on this case in related to the failed effort to seat an anonymous jury available by the PITTSBURGH POST GAZETTE and TRIBUNE REVIEW January first week editions.
THIRD: You now bring in Jefferson’s Office raid which is not related to the topic at hand. Another great move of misdirection since you provides no substance in your assertions to date. This tactic is becoming a common one on your part. I have not answered it because it is not related to the issue at hand. The execution of a search warrant and seizure of evidence is not related to the request for a voluntary interview which is the central issue here.
FOURTH: You once again overlook the fact that multiple papers have already reported that the person leading the investigation and prosecution of Dr. Wecht, US Attorney MARY BETH BUCHANAN, has released a statement through her staff that she order the FBI to contact the jurors to set up interviews. Please go review the PITTSBURGH POST GAZETTE, THE PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE REVIEW, WTAE, and all other news outlets.
FIFTH: Now you say you have issues with the jurors asking to remain anonymous in the newspaper when they provided their views on the case. Once again, the information on the jury members such as their names, address, and occupation is publically available if you go to the court house. Most people will not go to the court house to review this information as clearly demonstrated by your very actions here. Even though this information is public, the papers can not publish such information without the consent of the jurors.

Since the case of Dr. Wecht has been highly publicized throughout the Pittsburgh area, I can imagine why the jurors would not want their neighbors and everyone else knowing they were on the jury in the case. Many people have divergent opinions on the case overall and I could imagine that the jurors would not wish to have their neighbors and other random people share such views. Additionally, once the jurors release their names to the press, they can no longer argue that others should respect their privacy. Dr. Wecht, the individual in question, has a history of writing poison pen letters to individuals that have disagreed with him.

SIXTH: Yes, I do claim the FBI can interview a person without a warrant BECAUSE THEY CAN TALK WITH SOMEONE VOLUNTARILY WITHOUT A WARRANT. A warrant is required to search someone’s property, arrest someone, but it is not require for an agent to ask someone questions in relation to an investigation. If a person refuses to be interviewed, the FBI can then seek a warrant/subpoena to compel the individual to provide an interview/testimony. At this point in time, the FBI agent has to demonstrate the merits to the court to get a warrant. What is demonstrated by your assertion here is once again you have demonstrated you do not have a grasp on even the fundamental investigative, legal processes, and the requirements of law. I know, I will get your bull about providing a link, but once again I say to you please gain a grasping of the knowledge at hand

What is the issue with using the FBI is that jurors may not realize that they can decline such interviews. When you read the multiple reports on the topic at hand (the FBI’s contact with the jurors), you will notice that the FBI has initially attempted to set up an interview with the people. The FBI needs these jurors consent for the interviews, yet does not necessarily need to tell the jurors the FBI requires such concessions. That paper notes that the agents said they would be willing to go to the jurors house or the jurors could come downtown. This tactic is a simple one of getting the jurors to unknowingly volunteer for an interview because it is the FBI calling. They, as others, may not realize they can decline such meetings.
SEVENTH: You once again attempt your parsing strategy between jury pooling and interview opposed to reviewing what is allowed by prosecutors and defense attorneys in relation to polling as well as interviewing jurors about a case once the jury has been released.
I am now highly amused that you have once again gone on record providing a comment that shows you do not understand what you are talking about at all. It is cute that you posted the article in the TPMCafe; however in the future please keep to facts opposed to bold assertions.

The issue of at hand is that the use of the FBI has two ramifications:
(1) The jurors may not realize that they can decline such interviews and choose not to answer certain questions since the person asking the questions is an FBI agent opposed to one of the Assistant US Attorneys. Some may argue that a US Attorney is a scary person to deal with; however US Attorneys do not carry guns on average and also do not arrest people.
(2) The other issue is that when the information is released that the jurors of the former trial were contacted by the FBI directly after the hung jury, a member of the next jury may be hesitant to not go along with the prosecution’s view on the case due to fear of FBI harassment.

Alleged war crimes implications.