Posted on 02/08/2007 5:32:34 PM PST by NormsRevenge
As a seasoned trial lawyer, what is your best educated guess as to the outcome of this trial?
I'm hoping to read more of his cross exam. I'd also like to have the defense challenge his expertise on being a "journalist"...
How is this hearsay evidence? No one cares what Don Imus says, but surely it's relevant what Andrea Mitchell said, since she later changed her story.
Sadly, I agree with you. He will be convicted in short order. Perhaps Bush will pardon him.
Remember it's DC...
LOL, I'm not a "seasoned trial lawyer." After almost 30 years, I have one jury trial under my belt although I do about 10 trials to the court per year. But given that it's a criminal charge and the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" I would guess that Libby will be acquitted. And remember, none of us is innocent but some of us are not guilty. And that's what Libby is, "not guilty."
Herridge did not buy that line at all....to her credit.
At least that was my interpretation of Herridge's comments.
I actually heard that laughing comment by Mitchell that EVERYONE knew Plame was with the CIA.
Was Timmy sober today?
Thank you. I too believe this is a reach for Fitzgerald. It is a damned shame how power hungry people pursue these sham cases. Sadly, it seems the zealots never get a taste of their own medicine.
I've read thousands of exchanges on this over the last several days and nobody has mentioned putting Woodward on the stand, to question him as to whom he revealed Plame's name . Is it that irrelevant, or does everyone assume he's such a good liar, he'll just obfuscate everything?
Did the judge rule that Mitchell could be examined by the defendant? I thought he said otherwise, but I could be mistaken.
Look, everybody, it's the AP trying to pretend that the jury is going to be impartial!
I sure hope the judge didn't rule that Libby can't use Mitchell's words to impeach her if she is inconsistent on the stand. That's always fair game. He perhaps can't use it as direct evidence, but for impeachment of credibility.
The one thing I think we keep missing, maybe it's me....
Libby doesn't really have to prove Russert is lying, or even wrong, about the phone call.
All he should have to prove is that he had an honest belief in what was said in the phone call. After all, the facts of the phone call are not a crime, just what he said about the phone call. And that's only a crime if the prosecution can show he was deliberate about his lie.
I suppose that arguing forcefully that it wasn't even a lie would also indicate that he wasn't lying on purpose. After all, defending your view of the conversation even now, when there is no value at all in maintaining a lie, proves that Libby thought it was the truth.
Has Fitz actually presented any evidence that Libby had a reason for lying?
AP's coverage is total rubbish, as usual. The AP exists to elect Democrats.
You have to expect this kind of bias when Democrat politicos become "journalists".
"Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son".
or....
"I can't believe I threw up on Judge Fitzgerald's desk."
"Face it, Flounder, you threw up on Judge Fitzgerald."
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.