Feb 19 2007
Possible Libby Closing Argument
bumping to the top for Tuesday’s finale
As we await the actual closing arguments on Tuesday, it is worth speculating on how Team Libby will argue that Fitzgerald did not make his case. So here is my layman’s suggestion on how to argue this point. [Note: I am actually blogging from the backseat of our car, so the typos will be more numerous for a bit – but this is cool!]
Fitzgerald has perjury counts on Libby’s recollections/statements regarding his conversations with Russert and Cooper (two each, one count for his testimony to the FBI and one for him repeating his statements to the Grand Jury). In addition there is still some obstruction count left on his talks to Miller, though that may be thrown out if not extremely weakened. The point in all of these counts is Fitzgerald is claiming, and must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, Libby deliberately lied regarding his recollections. And Fitz has made claim on the specific motive for the lies. Now this is important because the indictment is as much a straightjacket on the prosecution as the defense. In other words, Fitz cannot change his claim of motive, and definitely cannot change his presentation of fact to support other possible motives.
This is important for all the liberals out there, because the indictment is clear on what motives Fitzgerald has promised to prove. And anything beyond this is not relevant. For example, claiming Libby lied to protect the VP from bad press is not a valid charge or rational for guilt. Fitz neither made this claim in the indictment nor proved, with evidence, Libby had done this. There is not any record of this being Libby’s intention. So first thing I would do is go through a wealth of popular liberal fantasies that are outside the scope of the indictment.
The scope of the indictment hints that Libby lied because (a) he was part of an administration effort to punish Wilson (as opposed to correct Wilson’s claims), (b) to that end he and others in the administration were out to leak Plame’s identity to the media en masse and (c) that Libby feared the DISCLOSURE of Plame’s identity was illegal and needed to be hidden from authorities. Note that nowhere in the indictment does it say Libby was not allowed to know about Plame’s identity, or HOW he learned it. And this distinction is key to his defense. How Libby learned of Plame’s identity was NEVER under investigation, and was not the concern of Fitzgerald’s investigation. So Libby was reasonably not too concerned about how he learned of Plame’s identity, just his contacts with the media.
This goes back to Fitzgerald’s ‘state of mind’ comments – which can be used against him in closing arguments. Since it was legal for Libby to know about Plame and Fitzgerald was s(supposedly) trying to determine who leaked to Novak, Libby was not focused on how he learned of Plame. This is clearly a reasonable ‘state of mind’. Fitzgerald, on the other hand, is pretending to read minds, so his leaps of illogic is Wilson was out to get Plame because he read about Wilson and helped the administration respond to Wilson. Talk about fantasizing!
So Libby’s counsel should identify what is in the indictment per Fitzgerald’s claims as mind reader (and I would use that term to deliberately to belittle Fitzgerald’s claims). Then I would go through what is not at question. There is no claim by the prosecutor Libby tried to defend the VP from the media, so that cannot be the basis of a guilty verdict. Neither is the idea Cheney and Bush used forgeries to get Americ into Iraq, and Libby was trying to cover that up. And so on. It is important to remind the jury of what is off limits and all of these scenarios are off limits.
Then I would point out and tear down the three assumptions in the indictment.
(a) Punishing Wilson: Fitzgerald never provided one bit of evidence of an administration effort to punish Wilson. Prosecution witnesses, in fact, demonstrated just the opposite. No notes or talking points or anything demonstrating there was an effort to punish Wilson. I would go through everything that pointed to just the opposite, then list all the evidence submitted by Fitzgerald to support that conclusion. It shows even Fitz’s case points away from his own claims.
(b) Leaking Plame’s Identity: Again, there is no evidence Libby tried to leak Plame’s identity to the press. Of the 7-8 journalists who testified, most – including Russert (under less than believable terms)- claimed Plame never came up in their discussions with Libby. Two excpetions: Cooper testified he brought up Plame and Miller cannot recall clearly one way or the other. In addition, there are no talking points or directions or any other evidence of a coordinated effort to out Plame. There were officials who did expose Plame’s identity to the media, but they were not Libby and Fitzgerald never once proved Libby was covering for Armitage or Fleischer. So only one witness claims, with doubt, Libby mentioned Plame.
(c) Libby Feared Exposure: Well, Libby did say he talked to journalists. So he exposed what was supposedly to be feared. But the indictment is not about talking to journalists about Plame – it is about how Libby learned of Plame’s identity! And this is where Fitz is screwed. Libby can claim his knowledge of Plame was never an issue since it was not illegal for him to know about her role. So he never thought much about it, and never worried about accuracy, regarding this aspect. And that led him to misremember or conflict events, etc. And this leads into the final claim – memory is a tricky thing.
This is the dicey part. You could point out at this stage there are reasonable explanations as to what led to where things are today. And the defense can review that all Fitzgerald demonstrated is reasonable people remember things differently. You could spend an hour going through the discrepencies between the journalists and other witnesses, Wilson and reality, and stories that changed as memories were ‘prodded’. There is no reason to claim Libby’s faulty recollections are any more sinister or illegal than Miller’s changed testimony, Armitage’s, Woodward’s, Fleischer’s, Bonds, etc. In fact, Libby has remained the most consistent (which is why he has two perjury counts for giving the same story to the FBI and to the Grand Jury.
Clearly Fitzgerald has not proven intent to lie. He has not proven a motive to lie. And he has not shown any of HIS mind-reading assumptions Fitzgerald claimed he would prove to prove the indictment. All he has is evidence that represents a wealth of possibilities – not the one Fitzgerald claims happened. The DC jury will not convict because, no matter how liberal, they have a deep distrust of law enforcement and out of control prosecturs.
One final point on the case. The judge is obviously and ex-prosecutor whining about how unfair it is to Fitzgerald he has to prove his case against a defense claiming innocence. Too bad, so sad. Walton forgot that Fitz had unchecked power of subpoena and unlimited budget. That was unfair. And Fitz screwed up with all those advantages. The truth is the judge let Fitzgerald screw up. He, unlike the jury, is reading the press and seeing what a disaster this case has become. And he is looking like a dupe, which he is. But his natural allegiance to the prosecutorial side is clouding his thinking.
This is the time when the prosecutor’s powers are supposed to be checked by our constitution and the right of an individual to a fair trial. Walton has not wanted a fair trial, he has just wanted to limit it to the point Fitz had his best shot to win. Fitz and Walton have really screwed up their reputations on this waste of a case. Check out more “pre game” speculation over at JOM.
Fitzgerald doesn’t have to prove motive. He doesn’t even have to prove intent beyond the question of whether or not Libby intentionally mislead the Grand Jury.
If the jury believes that I. Lewis Libby had conversations about Plame’s identity with his boss, took down handwritten notes that confirmed same, talked to Cheney’s in-house lawyer Addington asking about the Intelligence Identities Act, was briefed by the CIA and told by a couple three other employees of the Bush Administration and then TOTALLY FREAKIN” FORGOT ABOUT IT in all the excitement– then Libby walks.
If the jury has as much difficulty as I do swallowing this enormous pastiche of lies and misrepresentations – then he’s gonna be a girlfriend of the Aryan Nation for about 30 months. It’ll put that nickname in a whole new light.
He has to prove both motive and intent.Sooth you are not an attorney as shown by your ignorant coments. If there was no intent to defraud the the federal investigators as to his knowledge there is no case. As to his motive Fitzgerald claims it was to protect the administration.
Soothsayer
If the jury has as much difficulty as I do swallowing this enormous pastiche of lies and misrepresentations – then he’s gonna be a girlfriend of the Aryan Nation for about 30 months. It’ll put that nickname in a whole new light.
You know, you are just about the sickest person I have ever come across in my life. I am so glad I don’t have to live in your shoes because I couldn’t stand myself if I did. You would send a man to prison under these circumstances for your political beliefs? How scary to have your type of person running around free.
I will tell you here and now this trial is a farce and a travesty of justice. We will all rue the day this thing started because there will be no end. All this means is the justice system is broken and prosecutors have run amok. It has brought out to the general public how convoluted and nit picky the law has become. I always thought people got a fair trial but that is not true.
But then, I have said time and time again that you are a nihilist and you have proven it by every word you say so maybe this is your object. A broken justice system is a step toward complete destruction of our government.
The difference between you and me is that I know this is a farce and I don’t care if the defendant is a republican, a democrat, brown, black, yellow or purple or even a liberal I would still say it is a farce. I doubt you could or would make the same statement. You are so eaten up with hate your thinking processes are warped.
You need to get a grip and start thinking before you post your garbage.
Wrong “BEST” focus.
I think CLINE, for Libby’s defense closing; will give the jurors an opportunity to THINK. (Oddly enough the left hasn’t spent much time thinking the jurors can even THINK.
Sure. I’d love CLINE to wear a PURPLE TIE, nicer still if it has the “California Raisins” on it. (And, I bet the company that FUNDED “that” ad, might have a few ties, lying around, to spare. “I HEARD IT THRU THE GRAPEVINE” has gone beyond just the tune IN a commercial. And, what can you say now?
You want that “broiled?, boiled?, plame-ayed?, or flam-bayed? I think there’s nothing dumber than Fitz having to come to grips with what’s happened, here. In the courtrom. Where eventhing Wells did was short and sweet. And, everything he did ran the clock out with 8 hours of Libby’s testimony to the grand jury. SANS lawyer. While “russert,” forgot. He plum fergot that you can’t bring your own lawyer into the grand jury.
Seems Russert also “fergot” that he’d “GO TO JAIL TO PROTECT A SOURCE.”
And, how did russert do this hat trick? Because Libby called to complain about how Wilson LIED. And, how the media ENHANCED those lies. Was the INVISIBLE HAND OF ALAN GREENSPAN at work? Why not think it took lots of clout for the NBC lawyers to work their sham.
Russert’s “viewer complaint hat” is also a lie. Just as Kerry’s Cambodian hat, “halped” seer memories. And, I don’t think people will buy it. Anymore than they bought the Edsel.
As a matter of fact, what if it’s the left that’s guessed wrong about DC juors? While the right is already thinking the left is so divided away from mainstream America; that IF the jury hangs? Or if the jury convicts? They’re like PAUL REVERE. One if by land. Two if by sea. But ya just can’t shoot now. You can only shoot when the enemy is so close. You can see the whites of their eyes.
You think the left has soldiers that go to battle? You think they’ll approach so that PATRIOTS will see the “whites of their eyes?”
I think we may learn something new.
And, Walton? Should’a had a V-8 moment, or two. (Maybe, the Invisible Hand of Alan Greenspan is stroking him now?) Because he sure did have lots of opportunities that knocked, before “hand.”
While that “remark into the record. That court was held up because he “called other jurists for input.” Excuse me? Waltoon called judge Doofus? Who knew?
Let a doctor try that one. Where he has “off-the-record” remarks that sway his decisions, and you’d be looking at BIG MALPRACTICE. How big? When Clinton needed open heart surgery. The doc that made the call to ISOM (who was in the Hampton’s awaiting T-Time, that July 4th weekend.) COULD NOT BE TOLD CLINTON’S NAME. Because of HIPA.
Now, that didn’t stop russert from speaking to the FBI, on the phone. Where prior written records got “conveniently lost.”
Maybe, it will be possible to pull the wool over the jurors eyes. We just gotta wait, though. We gotta wait AND see.
I just think if this jury comes back NOT GUILTY, pelosi will vomit into her rag! Her “little people” will be giants in comparison to the reps we sent into the HOUSE. While at POWER LINE? Glenn Reynolds provides a link so you can see Bush’s POLL NUMBER RISING. Keep your cool. Wait until you see the “whites of the eyes.” The animals may surprise you. Walloon. Fitz-Magoo. And, the House majority; may be the people whose eyes are opened wide.
I’m not ready to count Libby out. Or the jurors out. Until the race crosses the finish line. Do I get surprised? Always. But so do you.
Stick to thermometers and stethoscopes, Doc, this is first year lawschool stuff you are ignorant of:
So what is the offense that was committed?
Fitz first has to prove that a crime was committed.
Fitz failed.
“Proof of motive may be material in proving that the defendant committed a particular crime, but it is not essential to a conviction.”
In this case, I believe that proof of motive is NECESSARY in proving that the defendant committed a particular crime, which there is NONE.
The “crimes” committed are the crimes with which Libby is charged:
1. Lying. To Federal investigators about when and how Libby learned the identity of Valerie Wilson Plame.
2. Perjury. Under oath and to the Grand Jury about when and how Libby learned the identity of Valerie Wilson Plame.
3. Obstruction of justice. The result of his lying.
This is a very, very simple case. If the jury believes he misrepreesnted unintentionally – he walks. If they don’t believe that – he’s guilty.
If you haven’t read this I highly recommend it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021601705.html
Chock full of indisputable facts…
from the article:
snip/”· In violating prosecutorial ethics by discussing facts outside the indictment during his Oct. 28, 2005, news conference, Fitzgerald made one factual assertion that turned out to be flat wrong: Libby was not “the first official” to reveal Plame’s identity.”
Another indesputable fact: Walton said in court he “called colleagues” for advice on the admissability of evidence, WITHOUT ASKING BOTH SIDES FOR PERMISSION.
Let a doctor try that, and not include the SECOND OPINION in the patient’s record. OR? To have disclosed to others, patient information, without first obtaining the patient’s signature, to RELEASE information. ONLY THEN making “off the record” chats with a colleague, judge doofus, legit.
Libby’s defense has LOGS on all the ERRORS. Where Libby has been denied his Constitutional rights.
waltoon also tried to direct Libby to testify; playing cat and mouse with evidence “he would allow in.”
While RUSSERT? Look over your star-board side. Russert is harpooned. And, won’t be set free. But it takes time. Just as it took more than a decade of books to air the fact that John F. Kennedy was not shot in the head with a single bullet. You don’t think so? Did you know Gerald Ford sat on the Warren Commission? How come, if those dudes were so proud of their work, and Americans so gullible, the funeral oration didn’t contain this fact?
And, as to the jury? How will they decide? When Reagan’s body lay in the Rotunda, it was the native born, in DC, who stood in line for hours and hours, to pay their respects. They weren’t tourists. They were ordinary folk from all ove DC and her suburbs. Where are they now? You mean none are sitting on this jury? Let me say this, ahead of time, you could fool me.
As to affirmative action, where I hold the opinion only freaks use this elevator. And, for a period of time, everyone in it went UP. They should hang a “broken” sign over the entrance. Doors open, still. But everyone goes DOWN. The elevators come up EMPTY.
And, people who live in a city that is wall-to-wall affirmative action hires, may surprise you. But they are not content.
As PAUL REVERE said when he warned our rebels. One if by land. Two if by sea. And, do not shoot until you see the whites of their eyes. Are we at Bunker Hill, yet? Or do we just see the press hunkered down, and stll fighting as if we’re in Vietnam? America is taking this all in. And, Bush’s approval ratings are going back up. (From 26% lalst week. To 35%) Does that mean pelosi’s and murtha’s are nowhere to be found?
Sooth, that quotation does not pertain to perjury. Perjury is a crime where both Motive and Intent are necessary parts of the crime. To commit perjury you have to Knowingly lie, lie about a material fact, and intend to mislead by lyinging. otherwise it is not perjury. So in the case of perjury, both motive and intent HAVE to be proven.
Go back ot basic law 101, you missed the message.
Enforcement:
You are 100% wrong. Libby is charged with:
The elements of perjury are: (1) a false statement made under oath or equivalent affirmation during a judicial proceeding; (2) the statement must be material or relevant to the proceeding; and (3) the witness must have the specific intent to deceive.
Intent – not motive – must be proven. If you don’t understand what motive means – go look it up – or ask a lawyer. Motive is the reason Libby lied. And the reason for a crime is never required in the proof.
Go back to kindergarten, sonny-boy.
Sooth ain’t Smooth
taking exactly what I said and rearranging it didn’t change the facts.
I said and you said:
knowingly makes any false material declaration .
I said and you said:
each declaration was material
I said and you said:
The elements of perjury are: (1) a false statement made under oath or equivalent affirmation during a judicial proceeding; (2) the statement must be material or relevant to the proceeding; and (3) the witness must have the specific intent to deceive.
I didn’t say and you said incorrectly:
Intent – not motive
this is not true for perjury.
You have to have a motive to intend to mislead.
As I said , you need to take basis law 101 again.
The elements of perjury are: (1) a false statement made under oath or equivalent affirmation during a judicial proceeding; (2) the statement must be material or relevant to the proceeding; and (3) the witness must have the specific intent to deceive.
Just how the hell is your above statement different IN ANY WAY fromwhat I said?
Sooth, that quotation does not pertain to perjury. Perjury is a crime where both Motive and Intent are necessary parts of the crime.
To commit perjury you have to
1.Knowingly lie,
(1) a false statement made under oath or equivalent affirmation during a judicial proceeding;
2.lie about a material fact,
(2) the statement must be material or relevant to the proceeding;
3and intend to mislead by lyinging. otherwise it is not perjury. So in the case of perjury, both motive and intent HAVE to be proven.
and (3) the witness must have the specific intent to deceive.
no you don’t have to have a motive, you just have to intend to do it.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. Motive is never an essential element of a crime.
Specific intent is NOT motive. Intent means that the utterer KNOWS the statement to be false, and he INTENDS to mislead. Why he intends does not matter.
Motive means WHY he is lying – in this to try to pr0tect the Office of the Vice President. See the difference?
I’m sorry you can’t understand English – but go ask some local lawyer to explain the difference to you. I already have – and you just don;’t get it.
For anyone to be arguing in favor of this prosecutor is absolutely ludicrous. This has been a witch-hunt from the beginning and ALL THE FACTS prove that to be so.
The seminar posters cannot answer why Armitage was not the one charged with leaking the non-covert agent’s name.
You know, that agent that had not been undercover for the required time and was at a desk job, whose husband was telling EVERYONE and ANYONE about her..who would listen.
Connect the dots. And go tell Macsmind.com that he is wrong about the black martket sales of uranium, if you dare. He’ll let you know how little you really do know.
Sootsayer, “Motive,” was not something your parents had in mind the night you were conceived. But “motive” really does go to procreation. And, also for why people lock in embrace. And, crimes.
Libby didn’t commit one.
HOWEVER, we have an UNcivil war in this country. Most people don’t care. The donks are still in vietnam. And, can’t get out of that swamp. No matter how often they borrow Kerry’s lucky hat.
Russert? A harpooned whale.
While the most intereting factor from this trial is yet to emerge.
I think the OJ jurors stomped on the jury system so hard, no one, anymore gives a hoot, or a hoot-en-nanny, for affirmative action.
And, yes, since this is a war, and one that’s supposed to affect voters, I think coming in at the tail end of the story will be the blogs.
Some blogs do very well. And, others fold.
When Howie Dean had his best promoter in Kevin Drum, Kevin had a blog called Cal Pundit. Kevin also saw problems with Dean, whose major triumph, in attacting millions of dollars from poor people, was a belief he raised among the far left, THAT HE WAS GOING TO KILL BUSH. Kevin probably has a more rational mind. Because he tossed Dean over in favor of thinking he could move Wesley Clark forward. Worked? About ten days. Then, Wesley Clark’s desire for the 2004 donk’s nomination, faded away. Ah. And, so, too, did Cal Pundit.
While someone posted that Glenn Reynolds’ Insta-Pundit was giving the law professor about $20,000 per month. (THEN.) Money he did not have to share with his “academic equals,” either. I’d bet, today, Glenn Reynolds blog makes him even more money.
Drudge, too, grew rich on the opportunity cast his way by Lucianne Goldberg.
While the NY Times lost $638-million-smackeroo’s last year.
Libby’s story has legs.
The same sort of legs that met with the “single bullet theory” that assassinated John F. Kennedy. Left a trail of books. And, some have been written, recently.
As to the jurors in DC? I’m gonna wait to see what they do.
I think Waltoon, if he’s aware that his reputation can go tanking, he might “throw the case to the jurors.” And, depending on what they do, might not accept a hung jury. And, will put them in a hotel for months; while they lock horns to come up with “something.”
Heck, he can even toss this monstrosity out the window, himself. And, on Tuesday! Laughing that he set up Fitz and Fong, clowns to figure out a closing. And, then? Wells isn’t even gonna do it. CLINE’s is up for Libby. And, ya know what? That means Wells is having a relaxed l-o-n-g weekend. Doesn’t have to concentrate on this case, at all.
For comedians, however? WOW. A lot of material for them to gorge on. To say nothing of lawyers who want to get face time on TV.
While Russert? I still think he’s harpooned.
The “crimes†committed are the crimes with which Libby is charged:
1. Lying. To Federal investigators about when and how Libby learned the identity of Valerie Wilson Plame.
Exactly when did Libby learn the identity of Valerie Wilson Plame. And why is this considered a lie? All witness testimony that Fitz used failed to prove that Libby lied to the FBI investigators. Eckenrode “supposedly” lost the notes of this investigation. Bond contradicted Eckenrode. Russert perjured himself.
2. Perjury. Under oath and to the Grand Jury about when and how Libby learned the identity of Valerie Wilson Plame.
Learning the identity of Valerie Wilson Plame is a crime? Why? Do you consider Plame a covert agent?
3. Obstruction of justice. The result of his lying.
Fitz has failed to prove that Libby, beyond reasonable doubt, lied. Libby was very careful to avoid mentioned Plame with the reporters. Libby was not the original leaker. He told Ari and Ari leaked to the reporters.
Exactly what did Libby misrepresent?
It’s a case of “He said, she said” with absolutely no crime committed. Libby had absolutely no motive, no opportunity to lie to the reporters.
soothie, you are hopeless.
Motive means WHY he is lying
he is lying to fulfill his intent, to mislead, so call it motive or intent, in the case of perjury, it is the same. the intent is to mislead, the motive is to mislead so you don’t know the truth. one and the same.
in the case of other crimes, motive and intent may not be the same, but it is in perjury. You may kill someone to get rid of them to prevent them from killing you. but in perjury, your motive is to mislead and your intent is to mislead. So whether they prove one or both it is the same.
but go ask some local lawyer to explain the difference to you.
for all you know I may be a lawyer and I may be explaining it to you.
BEST! CLOSING ARGUMENT AWARD …
Goes to …
WELLS!
In another disappoint break for walton, WELLS announced in court, on Thursday, that he’s letting his law associate CLINE give Libby’s close!
Ah.
Wells, went home KNOWNG, he understood walton. The kind of guy that likes to give “students,” long, arduous, unnecessary assignments; “because he can.”
OH, and Fitz? Scooter’s ridden over Fitz’s case so many times, already, it’s just a stain on the floor.
Maybe? Pelosi can come over, spit on her rag, and polish it up? Or off. Whatever …