For Fitz to convince a jury that Fitz lied, rather than merely misspoke out of confusion (Libby's defense), he needs to demonstrate that Fitz had a reason to lie. Once the defense shows that Plame was known by friends, neighbors, and journalists all across the countryside to be an employee of the CIA, and NOT covert for at least five years prior to the time period of Novak's column, then the jury should reach the obvious conclusion that Libby had no reason to lie. Why would he lie?
Of course, it all goes to motive.
For Fitz to convince a jury that Fitz lied, rather than merely misspoke out of confusion (Libby's defense), he needs to demonstrate that Libby had a reason to lie. Once the defense shows that Plame was NOT covert for at least five years prior to the time period of Novak's column, and was in fact known by friends, neighbors, and journalists all across the countryside to be an employee of the CIA, then the jury should reach the obvious conclusion that Libby had no reason to lie. Why would he lie?
I know we have all thought of this before but there are times this hits me in a chilling way. We have Wilson out lying that he was sent to Niger by the Vice President. In fact it turns out that he was unqualified for the mission, didn't file a written report and didn't sign the standard confidentiality agreement. Then in comes Fitzgerald who is given unbridled authority and who more and more seems to have conducted an investigation under false pretense. And the only one facing trial is Libby...just staggering.