Listen to the juror who went public after the verdict:

Denis Collins said that “a number of times” they asked themselves, “what is HE doing here? Where is Rove and all these other guys….I’m not saying we didn’t think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of. It seemed like he was, as Mr. Wells [his lawyer] put it, he was the fall guy.”

He said they believed that Vice President Cheney did “task him to talk to reporters.”

Collins said, “some jurors said at one point, ‘We wish we weren’t judging Libby…this sucks.” More than once he said many jurors found Libby “sympathetic.”

Asked about Vice President Cheney not testifying, he said, “Having Cheney testifying would have been interesting.” And when the defense opened the trial by suggesting that Libby was scapegoated by the White House, “I thought we might get to see President Bush here.” But Collins said Libby not testifying was not such a big deal since they’d listen to nine hours of tapes of his earlier testimony.

He also said that they found Tim Russert of NBC “very credible” and the defense “badgering” Judy Miller may have hurt them as some jurors developed “sympathy” for her. Even though she admitted having a “bad memory,” the fact that she had notes counted a lot in her favor, he said. Despite the badgering, some jurors thought Miller was “nice.”

Collins, a journalist who has written for The Washington Post and other newspapers — and is author of the 2004 book, “Spying: The Secret History of History”– described the jury’s painstaking deliberations. He said there were several “managerial types” on the jury and they spent many days just assembling post-it notes in some kind or “buildings blocks” fashion. They did not take an immediately straw vote.

“What we came up with from that,” he said, “was that Libby was told about Mrs. Wilson [Valerie Plame] nine times” in that time period. “We believed he DID have a bad memory,” he said, “but it seemed very unlikely he would not remember about being told about Mrs. Wilson” so many times….Hard to believe he would remember on Tuesd[ay] and forget on Thursday,” and so on.

He said they failed to convict Libby on the Matt Cooper charge, feeling it was pretty much one man’s word against the others, especially since Cooper had no notes.

He said that politics played no role in the verdict, and claimed most jurors didn’t know how others felt politically.

“The primary thing which convinced us on most of the accounts was the conversation… the alleged conversation… with Tim Russert…,” he said.

[My bolds] This juror repeats the accusations that circulated in the MSM and liberal blogs that Rove/Cheney/Bush “outed” Plame and then claims “politics played no role in the verdict”. Armitage? No mention. Wilson’s litany of lies? No mention. Plame’s non-covert status? No mention. Of course these are inconvenient facts that the MSM found inconvenient to mention.

The MSM polluted the minds of the jurors so successfully that there was no way Libby could get a fair trial.

Even so, it is obvious his defense made some major mistakes. Painting Libby as a scapegoat did not work. Not calling Mitchell to undermine Russert was a mistake (although the judge may be the one who screwed up here). Given that the jury believed that Plame had been “outed”, it was a major mistake not to make Armitage the villain who should have been in the dock.

The biggest issue is why Fitzgerald was allowed to continue investigating long after he knew Armitage was the leaker. Then Deputy Attorney General Comey deserves hanging for letting Fizgerald do a Nifong on Libby.

But, congrats to the MSM. They had it both ways; lie in print and tell the truth in their “friend-of-the-court” brief, as Andrew McCarthy explained in this NRO piece. Best of all, Libby went down.