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.
Soothie,
The point you are making about believing someone who has seen or been reminded multiple times about something can still forget and/or recall information inaccurately at a later time (without intentionally trying to lie about it), was a point well made by Libby’s lawyers using even prosecution witnesses!
I don’t think it’s as clear-cut in that regard as you might believe. (ie..the jury has to consider all this, not just the indictment and prosecution evidence).
Who other than Lossoing believes in United Nations today?
I don’t except maybe Ban. Maybe John Bolton except when he ranted against the recent NK agreement.
Hans Blix doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Saddam was one of the world’s most dishonest dictators. Example: he would store dead babies in his morgues for months until he had the right number of dead babies and use them as propaganda in order to get those sanctions lifted, claiming that those sanctions were killing 5,000 babies per day.
Lurker9876
tell that to Don Rumsfeld who was one among many in the US
interventionist empire encouraging Saddam to attack Iran, giving him
anthrax samples and Iranian military alignments, indeed even battle plans to effectualize his war.
Lassoing, tell that to Madeline Albright who shook hands with Kim’s father and gave him a basketball, too.
Tall that to Madeline Albright who said it’s worth killing 500,000 children of Saddam’s.
We chose to shake hands with the best of two evils that had been waging war against each other.
Don’t forget that we also ganged up with Stalin against Hitler. Stalin killed millions of his own people.
Don’t forget that we dropped two bombs against Japan. Today? Japan’s one of our best allies.
Don’t forget John Kerry shaking hands with the Viet Cong people in Paris.
Need I say more? I’ve seen you lefties using this photo of Don Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam and lost this argument…every time.
Yes ,you need say more. Because although I am 53 and cannot say
where I might have stood during World War Two, I can tell you if my ideology had been the same as that developed since my early twenties
I would have opposed, as did eg Charles Lindbergh and Norman Thomas, entry into it.
I am neither a Democrat nor Republican but an Independent
non-interventionist. On occasion I vote for one of the two major corrupt parties’ representatives; usually I vote third party.
I voted Nader, I voted Perot. I opposed Clinton’s intervention
against Serbia ,by 1971 was firmly against the Vietnam War.
I was opposed to the Persian Gulf war. I admire both D-Ohio Dennis Kucinich and R-Tex.Ron Paul regarding their firm anti-Iraq war credentials and both are legitimate presidential candidates.
American intervention overseas in violation of the Monroe Doctrine
has not brought democracy to the world, turned over half
of Europe to the Soviet and has wreaked havoc in the Middle East.
On the other hand I believe in strong defenses, much stronger
border control than Strata and a moratorium on immigration.
I am consistent and those with varying pro and anti war positions on Clinton’s intervention ,the Vietnam War ,Persian Gulf war & the Iraq War are not. I don’t expect long term consistency from Iraq war defenders but I do expect acknowledgement of both the WMD lies and the botched occupation staged by those arrogant enough to believe the neocon lies that we would be welcomed by the average Iraqi which would result in a cakewalk.
And I am confident that the Empire is on the wane, so we’d better
be about saving the Nation.
Lassong,
I feel the same way you describe sometimes…that you can’t support “the war on terror” without people insisting you having to carry somebody else’s water for the mistakes they made in prosecuting the war in Iraq, or their political or personal mistakes otherwise.
I guess I should come clean about something else….I was at WTC plaza on 9/11. And I had a tough time. Still do in some ways (mentally and physically). I can tell you..that we “both” believe in a strong defense at home. But, I would say..that we do not share the same view about the best way to achieve that. The same issues were brought to the fore in WWII. We had totally disarmed after WWI. We moved the nation back more to the doctrine neutrality_(the Neutrality Act). And when the case was being made for intervention in Europe to try and stop Hitler…many were opposed to it..wasn’t our problem, etc., not to mention we were ill prepared and didn’t have enough forces to even guard our own borders. Some of those opposed to such a preemptive war may have been consistent in their belief of opposition to such intervention outside our borders . But, it doesn’t change the fact that they were “wrong” just the same.
I don’t think there is such an aboslute position that works for every situation that is or may come. Nor do I think such poitical theories were ever written to be absolute. (at least not in “this” country). And I think it always pays to see which way the people are running during a conflict to know who the real enemy is.
Having said all that Lassong…I respect your opinions and your feelings shared. At least you make an attempt to be honest about it. I can tell you..there is no superpower that will ever survive history other than in books…no need to worrry about that…nor do I. I’m not sure that history teaches us that there is something one can do to prevent or change that. Eventually, all such things come to an end. But our strengths as a nation of people (as well as our economy, etc), will keep us strong..regardless of where we stand in the eyes of the world. That’s always been our source of strength..even when we disagree. And I suspect it always will be.
DRUDGE RADIO LAST NITE
The “Libby” subject didn’t come up until the last five minutes. It came with a remark from Drudge, that this trial has no one on board it, except partisans. And, other than the DC crowd, and the “other side” of a few blogs, it has not hit the mainstream. Seems mainstream America just doesn’t care.
Then? He took one caller. And, the male voice said “Libby deserves what he gets, “because Clinton pardoned Marc Rich, and now Bush will have to pardon him.”
Definitly produces circles around which minds revolve.
The partisanship is old. The left can claim Nixon’s head. The right cannot claim Clinton’s. Even though through Monica a lot is now known about the Clintonian political characteristics, to man and wife.
With the likelihood that the donks nominate hillary in 2008. Not a sure bet. Not even one for which you don’t need to add salt.
But Libby’s trial has been a bust. Including a bust, ahead for Russert. Where mainstream America doesn’t watch his show, either.
Even IF Russert is “caught” in a perjury trap; he’s got the same tailor as Sandy Berg(l)er. The donks have a closet full of suits Russert can wear.
And, during sweeps week, he can hope to raise his ratings by taking “mia-gulpa’s … perhaps starting on IMUS?” No jail time ahead for Russert.
And, no bail worries ahead for Libby. Because HE DIDN’T TAKE THE STAND! ON the stand, waltoon was ready to pick apart a sentence, where he’d pontificate that Libby was lying “to da judge.” And, he’d have gone into the slammer … Couldn’t get out. While the case spent years being “appealled.”
Meanwhile? The INDEPENDENT voter is up for grabs. There’s no party-apparatus behind the largest segment of the VOTING PUBLIC. So that means BOTH PARTIES “do” this partisan sport. And, “favorite idiot sons throw their hats into the rings. Name it? None better than a circus, will do.
Dc ” But, it doesn’t change the fact that they were “wrong†just the same.”
Of course you believe in the old paradigm but there are historians
and strategists who make a great case that we were not threatened
in the European theater nor would we have been threatened assuming strong defenses, had we stayed out. Hitler’s unwise alliance with Japan gave FDR the opportunity to goad the latter with impossible to meet ultimatums and into the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Until that foreknown event, Americans were overwhelmingly against entering the war despite a decade of Anglophile and Jewish
pressure group incitement.
Good to witness the neocon fellow travellers’ dissapointment that
Europe seems so unappreciative so soon .
As far as the WOT, polls of Moslem countries say, force Israel to give
the Palestinians a state and cease meddling in our nations’ affairs
(eg buying out Egypt’s peace) (overthrowing Mossadegh) and the
US will be the recipient of markedly less animosity.
While on the side lines, Condi’s career is kaput. Just another name to chisel on the doorway of State. With Colin Powell also a recipient of the “do nothing” award.
Lasso-untruth,
Anyone who admires Kucinich & Blix & the UN has suspect judgment to say the least. If the US “empire” — it’s not — is on the wane, it’s because of the liberal-creep that permeates academia and the dinosaur print & broadacts media, and is making our country soft.
DC summed up the legal justification for Iraq quite well. Naturally, you choose to stay misinformed and ignorant of the truth. Your anti-semitism also shows through in your postings.
I know it’s real hard for Republicans to be consistent, but if you think back real hard, you may recall impeaching some guy named Clinton because he lied about oral sex; this lie here deals directly with the falsified claims that led this nation into invading Iraq, leading to the deaths of 650,000 Iraqis, 3,500 US troops, 20,000 wounded and the present mess we’re in.
One of the liberal guiles is to accuse their opponents of the crimes they themselves commit.
Please explain how Libby lying to the FBI and grand jury about statememts or no statements to reporters led us into a war resulting in all of the above. You people conveniently forget the actual 16 words were that British intelligence found that Saddam sought to buy yellow cake from Niger. He said nothing about our intelligence saying that and certainly never mentioned Joe Wilson’s witless sortie into that world. Besides, you do realize Joe Wilson went to Niger in 1999 when Clinton was president and wrote a report that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake from Niger. Of course that was a different presidency. Liberals are full of lies. They try to change facts to fit their agenda and sound totally ridiculous.
This case is a farce and Fitzgerald indicting Libby is a sop thrown to the left so they would not trash him and to justify his spending all that money on nothing. It has been irrevocally proven that the WH did not try to “punish” Joe Wilson. If they wanted to do that they would have re-assigned Valerie to Outer Mongolia to get rid of her and could have done it easily.
Fitzgerald should be brought up on charges of wasting tax payer money on a non case that he knew was a non case from the time he was assigned to it. Both Fitzgerald and Walton should be sanctioned for denying due process and a fair trial. This has brought to light to the public how prosecutors and judges can slant a case their way and deny a defendant a fair trial.
“Anyone who admires Kucinich & Blix & the UN has suspect judgment to say the least.”
Well one of three ain’t bad for a neocon sheep. I admire Kucinich
true, as for Blix he was on scene doing his job as opposed to
parlor chickenhawks, –no “admiration” required. The UN? Wouldn’t
care if we got out-it was set up to do American bidding and got out of
our plutocracy’s hands somewhat. I never approved of most of
that plutocracy’s plans, though. Bush obviously admires it more than I.
Lassong…no..I’m not real big on “alternative’ history and mindreading. I know it’s all the rage….It’s just not for me. Sorry.
I don’t like Kucinich and Ron Paul. Ron Paul used to represent my district until Texas was redistricted. Now he represent the district next to mine.
I don’t like Hans Blix either.
I really don’t think Bush admires UN and knows the real truth about UN.
Yesterday morning I frowned when I opened up Houston Chronicle and saw, “Senate GOP blocked debate” (of the non-binding resolution). This headline is totally inaccurate. So don’t believe what the MSM’s telling you about this case.
As much fun as it is to analyze all this, it’s only the jury’s view of the evidence that really counts. I will stick to the overall view that this is a case about very little.
Because the lie Libby told were to protect the Vice President\’s campaign to retaliate against Valerie Plame and discredit her husband because Bush\’s lies aobut Nigerian yellowcake in the SOTU had been exposed.
The lies about yellowcake, along with lies about nonexistent WMD\’s and non-existent al-Qaeda/Saddam Hussein links were the lies used to get a gullible Congress and public onboard for a war Bush had planned on since February of 2001 – 6 months before 9/11 (Paul O\’Neill, former Sec of Treasury).
Libby\’s lies didn\’t lead to the war, they protected the lies that led to the war. They were his motive for lying.
Huh? Libby lied to protect the VP to retaliate Plame and discredit Wilson? Huh?
All they were doing was to correct Wilson. All they did was to find out who sent Wilson to Niger. Turned out that it was Plame that sent Wilson. Why did Bush Adm declassify the NIE report?
Turned out that Wilson was WRONG and a liar.
The lies about yellowcake? The 16 words in the SOTU turned out to be accurate by more than one source: Butler Report, Zawahie, and A. Q. Khan. Saddam did indeed SOUGHT to buy yellowcake. Exactly what those sixteen words said.
WMDs were found. Captured Iraqi documents, translated by Jveritas, also proved Saddam had WMDs as an additional source.
Strong connections existed between Saddam and AQ. Captured Iraqi documents, translated by Jveritas, proved this as an additional source.
No, Bush did not lie to get a gullible Congress and public onboard for a war. So what a US President plan a war? Each and every US President have every right to plan a war. They are commander-in-chief.
Libby’s lies did not protect the lies that led to the war. They were no lies. There were no motive for Libby to lie about the war. Have you already forgotten about the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act, unanimously voted by a Congress, a gullible Congress led by Clinton, and signed by Clinton, which led to a failed Operation Desert Fox?
Have you forgotten what all of those Democrats said about Saddam BEFORE and AFTER Bush used UN 1441 resolution to invade Iraq.
They all said how dangerous Saddam was to the entire world. They all said Saddam had WMDs. They all said Saddam had every intent in building WMDs once those sanctions were lifted.
How can you claim Bush lied without considering what those Democrats said in the last few years?
While Bush used WMDs as an argument, he used UN 1441 as the real reason to invade Iraq. We did not invade Iraq because Saddam had WMDs. We invaded Iraq because Saddam failed to meet 12 years of UN resolutions, including UN 1441.
You’re listening to the wrong people.
And Fitz’s case has absolutely nothing to do with this war. Fitz did not cover the reasons for going to war against Iraq. Fitz claimed that Plame’s identity had nothing to do with this case. The so-called lies about yellowcake, WMDs, et al, had absolutely nothing to do with this case at all.
This is NOT what Fitz presented in his case and asked the witnesses. Fitz did NOT use the so-called motive for lying to protect the lies that led to the war.
Did you know that John Quincy Adams and Thomas Jefferson “went to war” against the Barbary Islamic pirates?
Did you know that Abraham Lincoln “lied” to get us into the Civil War?
Did you know that what you had been doing is exactly Abraham Lincoln, FDR / Truman, JFK / LBJ / Nixon went through?
What????
Libby lied to protect the VP to retaliate Plame and discredit Wilson? Huh?
All they were doing was to correct Wilson. All they did was to find out who sent Wilson to Niger. Turned out that it was Plame that sent Wilson. Why did Bush Adm declassify the NIE report?
Turned out that Wilson was WRONG and a liar.
The lies about yellowcake? The 16 words in the SOTU turned out to be accurate by more than one source: Butler Report, Zawahie, and A. Q. Khan. Saddam did indeed SOUGHT to buy yellowcake. Exactly what those sixteen words said.
WMDs were found. Captured Iraqi documents, translated by Jveritas, also proved Saddam had WMDs as an additional source.
Strong connections existed between Saddam and AQ. Captured Iraqi documents, translated by Jveritas, proved this as an additional source.
No, Bush did not lie to get a gullible Congress and public onboard for a war. So what a US President plan a war? Each and every US President have every right to plan a war. They are commander-in-chief.
Libby’s lies did not protect the lies that led to the war. They were no lies. There were no motive for Libby to lie about the war. Have you already forgotten about the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act, unanimously voted by a Congress, a gullible Congress led by Clinton, and signed by Clinton, which led to a failed Operation Desert Fox?
Have you forgotten what all of those Democrats said about Saddam BEFORE and AFTER Bush used UN 1441 resolution to invade Iraq.
They all said how dangerous Saddam was to the entire world. They all said Saddam had WMDs. They all said Saddam had every intent in building WMDs once those sanctions were lifted.
How can you claim Bush lied without considering what those Democrats said in the last few years?
While Bush used WMDs as an argument, he used UN 1441 as the real reason to invade Iraq. We did not invade Iraq because Saddam had WMDs. We invaded Iraq because Saddam failed to meet 12 years of UN resolutions, including UN 1441.
You’re listening to the wrong people.