Posted on 02/20/2007 6:22:45 AM PST by Bahbah
DEFENSE SUMMATION CONTINUES
Good faith. One of the most important instructions.
A person who makes a statement based on a belief or opinion that is inaccurate, making an honest statement that turns out to be inaccurate. An honest belief is one of the most complete defenses because such an honest belief is inconsistent with the intent to commit the alleged offenses.
In this case, it is a deliberate, purposeful, intent to lie.
I'm just going to review chart I used in opening statement. Walk through quickly.
Gave best good faith recollection
Innocent mistakes
No knowledge that Plame was classified [whether or not she was classified is out of bounds]
Did not push reporters to write about Valerie Wilson
Did not leak to Robert Novak, Armitage did [brings up Ari, leaking to Pincus], when Judy says, he worked at WINPAC Libby's not a nut, he wouldn't go out and leak false info
Libby is innocent and had no motive to lie
[Wow, I wish I could do the cross on this, Wells is throwing up so many softballs for Fitz to just slam outside of the park]
Let me talk about Russert. Russert is involved in three counts. Obstruction, False statement, perjury. No one is sure if the conversation is 10 or 11 or 12 [ha! he's never even said 12 before, but now they have to get to 12 because of their stupid Novak article change in argument, geez this is pathetic, laughs all around in media room]
1) Russert asked libby if Libby knew that Wilson's wife worked at CIA, Russert told Libby all the reporters knew it
2) Libby was surprised
1 is what Russert said, 2 is Libby's state of mind [which is why those 9 govt witnesses are so important, Ted]
I'm going to focus on number 1, surprise I'll do my second.
How long do I have?
Walton: You've got 15 minutes before lunch. You've gone 46.
Wells: Bill's given me the extra 15 minutes.
[Laughs all around]
First charge is just based on Russert's word. Based on credibility of Russert, Libby is facing 3 felony counts, his whole life. I said in opening you don't have to find Russert is a liar. You don't have to find that he took stand and intentionally lied. You have to find that Russert, based on testimony is not sufficiently reliable that any reliable jury can convict a person beyond reliable doubt. You don't have to decide he lied. What Russert is saying is it's impossible. I would submit that he just doesn't recall.
12:19
I think what has infected the left in this country is "Bushaphobia" a new form of rabies ....
THIS BIT TAKES US TO THE LUNCH BREAK
Why would Libby make up a lie and rely on Russert. They're not friends. It doesn't make sense for him to use Russert.
Was the Russert conversation something that would be protected by first amedment. It wasn't that kind of conversation. It was just a viewer complaint. Has nothing to do with first amendment, reporters privilege. NBC not friendly network, wrt Libby. NBC where Matthews on all the time, badmouthing the VP, NBC was where Wilson made his debut, when he first came public, he went on NBC, that was his home network, sitting there with Andrea Mitchell. There's no reason why you'd ever pick Russert.
Libby says conversation with Russert happened bc that's his recollection. There's powerful evidence that Russert was wrong when he says it was impossible. I haven't gotten to discussion by Gregory.
Slide: Reasons to doubt Russerts trial testimony:
You cannot rely on his testimony to convict another person.
First, he has no notes,
Second his trial testimony is inconsistent
Evidence shows Russert could have known about Wilson's wife, you know Gregory was told by Fleischer. Stipulation in evidence that time difference is such that Gregory is told at 8 in morning on 11th. And also you know that a lot other reporters knew. When reporters already knew, Cooper knews, Woodward knows. Novak knows. THey don't just sit on information, that info gets out.
In terms of Russert's credibility, we know he filed misleading affadavit with Hogan when he said he was protecting first amendment. He filed misleading affadavit. Ask yourselves, does that comport with what happened in November.
Russert gave misleading account to public. He never tells the public I had been called by FBI and discussed whole conversation freely.
Finally, Russert has memory problems. He forgot a very important telephone call that involved himself involving the Buffalo news. He had to write public letter of apology, where he had to regret for not recollecting something. He was candid at the time, the only thing that shook that confidence was that he had a note. There's no note in this case, you can't have reasonable doubt. You can't decide that's firm and convincing evidence of guilt.
Shows Russert's two inconsistent testimonies.
You look at Eckenrode affadavit, it was one, possibly two calls.
Russert oculd have told about Wilson's wife prior to July 14, you know Gregory story, Novak story.
That's the affadavit, read paragraph 6. [Wow, Ted shouldn't be rushing through this, this is the actual evidence he has]
Misleading statements, on TV.
Can I play that clip?
[Sound's not on for us here.]
He just leaves out how he didn't talk to FBI.
Shows Buffalo News, this is Buffalo news part of the case. What you'll see, this was a serious attack on Russert's credibility, in that article, person wrote that Russert involved in cheap shot, that Russert like bull in china closet, he said Russert embarrassed himself and his profession. Russert picked up and called person. Said I demand an apology, then he's interviewed, says he didn't call the guy. Then the guys publish their own article. Tim, don't you remember?
[Reads headline accusing him of "public memory lapse"] I would ask you, do not indict on the word of someone suffering public memory lapse. The only reason he admitted he was wrong, is because he had a piece of paper. That's why you can't indict on he said she said testimony from a person like Mr Russert, it just would be wrong.
Lack of recollection on Libby' indictment. I don't recall, I don't recall, I don't recall. He was on the Today show, talking with Katie Couric, talking about how this is huge, says he doesn't recall any of it [Wells is switching the use of this evidence–originally it was introduced to make it appear that Russert WANTED Libby to be indicted, but now he's using it to hammer Russert for his memory]
[Plays Imus show] Didn't remember talking about Santa Claus. You cannot convict Libby solely on the word of this man. Again, you do not have to conclude that he was lying. Unlike other witnesses, he didn't admit his memory unreliable. He dug in. He said he believes it. The objective evidence shows he does have a faulty memory. You may decide, I'm not sure what happened. But that's not guilty. Maybe Russert is right and Libby is wrong. Remember, Novak says he may have said it to Libby at about the same time. Novak said he might have done it. It would have been natural for a reporter to have asked that question. Maybe Libby did nothing more than confuse Novak with Russert. That's what I mean, perhaps Libby is confused. There's no question he got some things wrong in the GJ. Same thing with Cooper, maybe he got Cooper confused with Russert. What it shows it's impossible to show with any degree of certainty that Libby is guilty of intentional lies.
That's where govt has falled shown.
How's my time?
Walton: You've got an hour 10 left.
Wells, evidence shows Russert conversation is unnecessary, He wouldn't have to concoct a story with Russert, his testimony is that on the same day Rove told him that Novak was writing an article and knew he was writing a story about Plame. It is a point that blows up entire story. [Hey, Wells, any reason you didn't put Rove on the stand so you had corrboration for this?]
Meat grinder. Best evidence for Libby's state of mind.
Concerned not about his job, but about being scapegoat.
Best evidence of innocence. Fitzgerald showed opening statement. But he didn't read it the same way I did. To get WH PS to clear him the way ROve had been cleared. He laid out the whole story, Only I showed you the note.
I'm going to finish this section, judge. Just right now (gives page number). They [Card and McC] both blew him off. This is Mr Fitz, asking a question. And Scooter Libby is sitting out there alone as someone whose named not cleared. I don't care what word you use, he had to go all the way to the VP to get cleared.
This is Libby describing to VP, I thought it was unfair since I didn't talk to NOvak either. See, Rove had lied, Rove did talk to Novak, Rove lied, Scooter Libby did not lie. [a little jury nullifaction with your lunch, folks?] Continues to go through the meat grinder lie. In GJ they explain that Libby had to go out and adress others. Incompetence of others is incompetence of CIA that let 16 words in SOTU. If you thought you had done something the last thing you would do is go to Card, then McC, then VP, only an innocent person would do that.
Walton: Break for lunch. Come back at 1:40. I'd ask to have everyone back at 25 to 2. Repeats warnings.
12:41
Pretty amazing, isn't it.
I am an advocate and a conservative, so I will advocate a cause from the conservative side. However, if I am basing my arguments on a fact or facts that turn out not to be true, I drop those "facts" and look elsewhere for support of my position and/or I revise my position.
This does not appear to occur on the left.
I see Wells is still playing the scapegoat card, playing off Libby versus Rove and the rest of the White House. He must really believe that there's a strong anti-Bush element in this jury, and he's trying to use that to his advantage by making Libby seem like a victim of the evil Bush insiders.
I also see Wells has taken some swipes at the "outing/retaliation" theory, even though Libby was not charged with that. He must sense that it forms part of the background of the case in the minds of the jury, and that he can garner jury sympathy if he can show that Libby was not actively trying to "get" someone, but was a very busy man reluctantly dragged into the story by reporters such as Cooper. Hence his emphasis on the hasty and chaotic circumstances of the Cooper contact, interrupting a family birthday outing.
What a DumbA$$. There is no "cross" on closing arguments.
LOL. I knew someone would notice that.
If you take the first letters of the last words of the consecutive paragraphs starting with paragraph number 33 in Libby's Grand Jury testimony it clearly spells "ASPEN ROOTS"
Damn ...if you do the same thing starting with paragraph 206 it spells " ROVE IS DEAD"....Freaky
LOLOL.
I've noticed the exact same thing. What is really odd to me is that these are seemingly well-educated intelligent people yet all logic and common sense seems to take a hike whenever the matter is even remotely political.
I teach a night class at Georgia State and I have two students who are extrememly bright and have an amazing grasp of historical events for their young ages, but when the matter of politics arise they just forget everything they know and their emotions take over. It is almost like a compulsary response. Scary.
Yes, it is scary. People don't analyze why they react the way they do to certain words and phrases, but politicians and their advisors do and use them to manipulate.
A person could do an entire semester class just to enlighten people as to how they are being manipulated. But you would think intelligent folks would figure it out themselves.
LIBBY LIVE: DEFENSE SUMMATION TWO
Okay, this picture is misleading–we'll actually have Jeffress after lunch. then Wells. You'll just have to imagine Jeffress.
The interesting tidbits during lunch: Jeffress made a nice smile when Ted said he was going to take Jeffress' time. But one of the associates made an "oh no!" look when he said it.
But the coolest insight came from Christy. The graphic Zeidenberg used–and he used it consistently–showed everyone that spoke to Libby about Plame–or that he spoke to. For most people, they showed the faces of the people–these are, after all, witnesses who took the stand. But with the two CIA witnesses, Grenier and Schmall, they used just the CIA logo. Christy thinks it underscored the importance of keeping CIA employees' identities secret. Nice touch, huh? Kudos to Christy for having caught it!
Other opinions from lunch: Jeralyn thinks Wells had great body language, Pach agrees, and thinks that Zeidenberg (who was apparently pacing in front of the jury) wasn't effective. Jane thinks Wells made a mistake in making this all about him, Wells, rather than Libby. And it appears that Wells has gotten his team into timing problems, because he took 20 minutes to respond to Zeidenberg, which he needed to present his case.
Here we go, Walton's in, waiting for the jury.
1:40
JURY'S BACK AND SUMMATION OF THE DEFENSE CONTINUES
Walton asks if they fed them alright. Someone makes a half-hearted yes.
Jeffress. The most improtant thing I have to say to you. THe govt asks you to find that Libby lied, that'll mean the loss of his freedom. The govt wants you to find that he made up a story, that he told it to the FBI and the GJ. They want you to find that Libby made up as his source the most famous TV newsman. They ask you to find that, in making up this story, Libby would say he forgot the conversation with Cheney and no one else, when Libby knew that the FBI would go out and talk to all the govt officials. They ask you to find that Libby did all this to protect himself from a crime he did not commit, to protect him from losing his job or security clearance, that were never in jeopardy. These are the things that govt asks you to find. Your standard is beyond reasonable doubt. Common sense alone tells you they did not carry that burden. The witnesses taught you a lot more about fallibility of human memory. Remarkable thing from govt is a statement that we have no difficulty in remembering conversations. Let's talk about every day lives, someone brings you in and says, what did you say four months ago. We don't have a problem remembering that? That's not so. And the govt tells you this is not a case about memory, but of course it is.
[This is SO much more effective than Wells' statements. Reasonable, calm, common sensical]
I'm going to talk about journalists. Govt remember in opening statements, that Libby was leaker, set out to leak info on Wilson's wife. To combat story that Wilson was telling. You were told. Btw, I need notes. You were told that this investigation was about who may have broken the law by leaking classified information. This case isn't about this. Libby is not charged with leaking classified info. The anwers are relevant. Let's look at who did and who didn't talk to reporters. We're in agreement that Libby first learned about Wilson's wife on June 11.
[Shows note from Libby-Cheney conversation.]
That's Libby's note of when he learned this information. Libby has absolutely no notes of any of these conversations. This is the one note that shows he was told back in June that Wilson's wife works in CIA. I guess if he were the dishonest person the govt thinks he is, he would have ditched that note, if he were that kind of person. As a matter of fact, he came into FBI and told them about it. You know, in opening, it was a little confused about when Libby spoke to people. Grenier, Grossman, Martin, all tell him that they learned about it back then. and he told a reporter about it.
This note was about what he should say he said to Walter Pincus. Let me talk about Walter Pincus. He wrote a story published on June 12, about the former Ambassador. Later, both Walter Pincus and. Fitzgerald knows about this conversation. Later Pincus cowrote a story. And what Pincus said is that a govt reporter was told on July 12 about the wife. In this GJ, Fitz asks Libby about talking with Pincus.
1:51
Good for the defense pointing this out. I hope it isn't expecting too much from a DC jury.
Part of being manipulated is to keep the victim unaware that it's happening. I think this is the case for many otherwise rational folks. A sort of brain washing.
Actually that isn't the case at all. In the opening statements Libby's attorney acknowledged that information. The point of the indictments are that Libby INTENTIONALLY misled the GJ by contrasting those statements against those of some of the reporters. Libby already knew who Plame was, to that no one is arguing, what is at issue here is that Libby was 'dragged' into this story ONCE THE INVESTIGATION OF THE LEAK STARTED. Big difference, and Libby's defense has brilliantly laid this out.
If this jury even has half a brain among them Libby will easily be found not guilty and the left will not have their little Fitzmas.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.