I was wondering how I would feel if I'd been on a jury and felt that the prosecution was possibly politically (vs. legally) motivated, and a hung jury verdict resulted in a visit to my home by FBI agents.

I would think about recent revelations in wire tapping, the propensity of current authority to decide virtually anything is a matter of homeland security, and the urge of this administration to visit revenge on whoever crosses them. So,I guess it would be fair to say I would be alarmed. What did the other jurors say about me? What will happen if I don't care to say what went on in the jury room? Are these FBI good guys, or the ones who went to Reactionary Wingnut U. and are out to "cleanse" the country in the name of God?

What if I wasn't on the jury for the first trial, but got called for the second? Would the FBI intrusion into the first jurors' lives affect my state of mind? What if I told the judge, "I can't be on this jury because I'm afraid of what the feds will do to me and mine."? Maybe it would be safer to keep my head down and deliver a verdict they wanted, thereby selling my soul. Maybe I would do the right thing and ruin all our lives.

So, I'm "deeply troubled" too, John.

I don't know about you, but I feel better knowing Conyers is deeply troubled. The FBI & USA's must be trembling uncontrollably, having sleepless nights; the horror.

Damn, I just get so nervous when Conyers gets "troubled." That means one of those terrible, meaningful "strongly worded letters" follows. Pitiful. If they can't inpeach the whole lot of this cretinous administration with the admissions of CRIMES committed, they shouldn't be in office because they are betraying the Constitution, the government the people and it makes them complicit.

Here's a wet dream.

Next year, President, insert name here, goes before Congress and the American people, and exhorts Congress to fully investigate the illegal acts committed by the prior Administration and bring impeachment proceedings and judicial referrals against those officials based on their findings and that of the Department of U.S. Marshals, the replacement for the FBI (it being to corrupt to be of further use in the Republic). In the interim, President, insert name here, stated he/she will honor arrest warrants for war crimes by any recognized authorized.

Well what’d you expect? It’s Friday and I’m on my second Cosmo!

Could it be the FBI is "investigating" the jurors to see and mostly hear weather any jurors are credible in the assertion of political, rather than legal motives for the prosecution.

I mean, it could also be in retaliation against the jury, who were reported to lean heavily towards acquittal.

But it stinks to high heaven that the FBI would be looking for wrongdoing from the jury.

Has anyone asked, who sicced them on that jury?

When pondering the activities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, its simply easier to think of them as the Political Police. Everything they do becomes understandable.

Of course they were sent to intimidate, to be the heavy hand of the State. And ordinary folks are all too aware of the ability of the Political Police to rip their lives apart. One phone call to an employer...'we're doing an ongoing investigation of Joe Blow, one of your employees... may we send some agents to your office' or dropping a dime to the I.R.S. about the jurors sales on eBay... or asking their healthcare provider if they verified ALL of the little checkboxes about prior conditions for Mr Blow - and if not, why not?

Anybody with a brain knows what a visit from the FBI means. You're being terrorized.

As with the Iraq WMD issues, the White House is relying on public ignorance. Tellingly, the US Attorney did not issue this non-sense statement:

"It is commonplace for the prosecuting attorneys and the investigating agency, in this case the FBI, to participate in the post-verdict discussion with the jurors," Ms. Philbin said. "Often that occurs before the jury leaves the courthouse. In this case the jury was excused before the attorneys and agents had an opportunity to speak with the members.""

Separate Branch of Government

We're talking about a third branch of government, the court. Attorneys give their closing argument, and the Jury gives its verdict. Then things are over. The court does not then give the executive branch employees -- attorneys and FBI-witnesses/investigators -- another role in the Judicial Branch. The court doesn't keep jurors waiting "until" the Executive Branch gets a second crack at them, nor does the court permit executive branch personnel to put jurors on the witness stand and explain their reasoning. Those deliberations are secret; and the court does not then breach that secrecy by elevating the US Attorney or FBI agent to an inquisitor.

Mock Juries

The reason they have "mock jury trials" is because juries are not available; and the mock juries are designed to give the lawyers an idea of the problems they'll confront. This trial would ask that mock trial/mock juries do not exist; and the FBI and US Attorneys directly interview jurors after the trial. What a load of non-sense.

No Executive Office Power or Role

After the trial, all contact between the jury and the court officers ends. FBI agents do not have a role in a court. They are, at best, witnesses. They are not officers of the court; and court officers (attorneys) have no power over any of the jurors. The court is a separate branch of government. The US Attorneys office would have us believe an absurdity: That the jurors work for the attorneys, and the FBI. They do not.

Too much coordination, too fast, by FBI agents. Not buying this. This was coordinated outside DOJ. We need to hear more about the "post verdict discussion": When the trial is over, the jurors are excused, where they leave. There's no dancing around with the attorneys. The jurors don't work for attorneys or the FBI.

My understanding is the local FBI and DEA offices report to the local US Attorney as well as their head office. It is a matrix organization.

I think you are attempting to build as mountain out of a molehill here. I do not think the OLC is involved. From the response from former attorneys for the DOJ, the use of the FBI in this manner by Ms. Buchanan does not appear to be illegal, just unecessary and overkill in their opinions.

No one is saying that Washington is running this one and I got to tell you that Buchanan appears not to be listening to central DOJ on this one for some time.

The issue isn't whether they are or are not allowed to do anything; the question is who in the White House directed this effort across multiple DOJ divisions and the Judicial Branch. The story Buchanan gave doesn't add up, as she has no power to direct the FBI. She's a prosecutor, not a Special Agent in Charge.

Diversion

"Allowed to" is not addressing the issue of "direction", as in "Who directed this"?

The FBI/DOJ is allowed to interview former jury members of a hung jury.

You're also "permitted" to do many things, but that doesn't mean you should; nor that it is ethical or lawful. You have not addressed the issue of how the US Attorney, working for the President, got access to the Jury Members home addresses within the Judicial Branch; what "investigation" the US Attorney was leading; what specific "case" outside the original litigation, the US Attorney is now working. Once the case ends, it's over. You're asking for the opposite: US Attorney gets to go on a fishing trip, ignore the mock jury system, and throw the FBI agents at the juries. What a load.

Assertions Devoid of Reason

Interviews are not normal. You're repeating the US Attoney's clap-trap. Stop that. Don't care about the "judge releasing" anything or "interviews": That's US Attorney office non-sense. Again, this is a separte branch of government, the DOJ officials do not govern the jury members; and after deliberations, the DOJ personnel in court do not have jurisdiction over anyone. The "judge released them before interviews"-assertion is a meaningless. The sky is blue:

The judge released the jury prior to the interviews taking place.

Don't care what the US attorney story is about "judge releasing" the jury or the "interviews." That's non-sense. Note again, that assertion didn't come from Buchanan, but from someone else in her office. Look at the Attorney Standards of conduct: She didn't make the statement because to do so could implicate her for alleged misconduct. It's highly irregular for FBI agents to be talking to jury members, especially at their homes, this quickly, about a high profile case.

TPM Parrot Unsure About US Atty-FBI relationship

Get your story straight: Is it the US attorney directing the FBI; or is it the FBI working with the US Attorney.

To date the news reports from the jury is that the FBI is setting up these meetings with the US Attorney.

Either the US Attorney is in charge, or they're not. You're still not sure, are you. You're dutifully reporting the White House spin. Wasn't the lesson of Iraq WMD that we need an independent media, not lapdogs.

No Clarity To Who Directed US Attorney

Great, we can partially agree on this:

The issue is why is the FBI being used as a meeting planner and does a call from an FBI agent intimidate people.

You didn't address the issue how, the Executive Branch, got access to Judicial Branch information; who released it; and how the FBI agents go the names of the jury, and their home addresses. These wer not calls, these were meetings in jury members homes. The FBI doesn't do phone interviews, they send agents to meet you in person. Classified investigations do not use unclassified communication methods: Telephones.

The question is how the FBI agents, this quickly, were cleared with the names, got US Attorney coordination, were conducting litigation reviews, and were freed-up this quickly. Your "analysis" is merely a retelling of the drivel we've read in the media.

- Who in the White House prompted Buchanan to do this?

Let's hear something under oath, and don't repeat her clap-trap. She appears to be tainted: Improperly conducting a DOJ OPR-DOJ IG-like investigation through the FBI.

Testing, I have attempted to answer your viewpoints with fact and links to the news article. Basically, I have tried to fill in the holes in your analysis that results from you not reading the articles on the case or understanding the process in relation to a hung jury. I do not mean to offend; however at this point perhaps bluntness is best.

The simple fact is US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan is the head of the DOJ for the Western PA District. All members of the DOJ report to her in that district as well as Washington.

The second fact is the jurors names were provided to both the defense and the prosecution at the onset of the trial. After a hung jury, the defense and the prosecution is allowed by law to interview the jury to poll them on the case. The addresses were already provided to the court and were surely released to the defense and the prosecution after the verdict. If you go to federal court house and look at the public record, you get all the names and addresses of the jurors on the case.

Here is the latest news story which outlines this fact.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_562027.html

The White House is not orchestrating a case against a Pittsburgh Democrat. What you have is a US Attorney who has gone off the reservation in an attempt to curry favor with her superiors.

Please stop posting responses that say red herrings and talk about 9/11 and WMD. Such responses are beneath you and belittle your arguments. I ask that you please go and research the workings of the US Attorneys and the court system prior to pushing points as fact when they are not. My concern is that when someone pushes things that are wrong in this type of argument, the result is the entire argument fails to gain support. In this situation, a review of the US Attorney in this case is surely warranted.

GSB27,

your feeble attempts at trying to re-direct, are only getting Testing going.

Nice goin' GSB27.

But Testing wins.