Libby’s Defense Rests Case in CIA Leak Trial

NY Times ^ | February 14, 2007 | NEIL A. LEWIS

[Anti-Bubba182]

WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 — The lawyers defending I. Lewis Libby Jr. against perjury charges rested their case today, but not before suffering a series of defeats in legal rulings by the presiding judge......

.........Judge Walton ruled against Mr. Wells on two motions seeking Mr. Russert’s recall. Mr. Russert, in his testimony, denied that he had told Mr. Libby about Ms. Wilson as Mr. Libby had claimed....

.....But at the time Mr. Russert had already discussed his conversation with Mr. Libby with an F.B.I. agent and Mr. Wells asserted that Mr. Fitzgerald agreed not to raise that matter because it would have exposed Mr. Russert as a hypocrite and undercut his television statements that he was standing up for the First Amendment and reporters’ rights.

Judge Walton took the unusual step of questioning Mr. Russert’s lawyer, Lee Levine. Mr. Levine said he never discussed with Mr. Russert the agreement with the prosecutor not to raise the conversation with the F.B.I. agent. Judge Walton then the issue ruled it was irrelevant to the case.

[Anti-Bubba182]

"My speculation is that it is because the Libby team knows the fix is in. If Libby doesn't haul them in and embarrass them, and doesn't take the stand and expose himself to damaging his bosses, he will probably be convicted. But then the President will be well-disposed to pardon him, and probably will."

He could end up doing time under this theory.

[razorback-bert]

Yes, Federal court here was coat and ties.

[Laverne]

No more witnesses in this case, Fitzy declined to put up anymore. Closing arguments are set for Tuesday. Somewhere between now and then, I would presume that Team Libby would do whatever it is (Rule 29) to dismiss some/all charges; however, given the way the Judge has ruled in this case, I doubt any charges would be dropped. I simply will never understand why Team Libby was not allowed to call Andrea Mithcell, or why the judge would NOT allow him to recall Russert on his blatant lie to the court (I didn't know you couldn't bring a lawyer into a grand jury). Russert is scum in this and he has NO credibility left in my mind; well...to be honest, I have thought him to be scum for quite some time anyway.

[Oystir]

a more likely scenerio is the defense was underwhelmed by the prosecutor's case and decided to put a few witnesses on and shut up hoping the jury understands the prosecutor's case was week. In other words, they belive they were sucessful in undermining the case during cross examination and the use of a couple of witnesses. Shut up and close the case quickly.

[Zeppo]

Mr. Levine said he never discussed with Mr. Russert the agreement with the prosecutor not to raise the conversation with the F.B.I. agent.

Nice try, but that was Russert's signature on the false affidavit, wasn't it? He can't squirm out of that one so easily... The judge in this case has embarassed himself time after time after time during this trial...

[Hilltop]

Umm....it's spelled grammar.

Go stand in the corner.

:)

[the Real fifi]

JOM has been ripping apart his reports day by day. He is an idiot.

[CharlesWayneCT]

bizarre.

Unless you mean it's like a place where you can haggle for price on trinkets. In that case I apologize.

[Anti-Bubba182]

JOM?

[Zeppo]

Libby's defense led the judge to believe, apparently several times, that Libby would be testifying in the case.

Apparently the judge was guilty of not paying proper attention - which seems to have been a problem since the beginning. If I have interpreted it correctly, my understanding (from reading JustOneMinute) is that one of the defense attorneys has pointed out to the judge that the defense has always explicitly left open the possibility that Libby might not testify, and that the judge has backed down from his earlier mistaken claim that they did not do so (although apparently without reversing the judge's own rulings based on that mistake).

[CharlesWayneCT]

The ruling makes sense. There was no evidence submitted at trial that other things were more important to Libby than the Plame thing.

That's the problem with not testifying -- nobody else can introduce YOUR state of mind, and if you don't, you can't argue it in summation.

[Zeppo]

JOM = Just One Minute blog

[the Real fifi]

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/

[Anti-Bubba182]

Thanks.

[fso301]

The one juror who apparently declined to don a T-shirt was a woman who had been a curator at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Was she donning a veil?

[CharlesWayneCT]

Or gram cracker school.

[Zeppo]

There was no evidence submitted at trial that other things were more important to Libby than the Plame thing.

According to John Podhoretz in The Astonishing 'Stipulation', Libby's lawyers were able to get exactly that added to the trial record. Take a look at that article - the (sanitized) list of topics that Libby was briefed on during only a single day is breathtaking, and no matter how dense any individual juror may be, it does not take much imagination to 'get the point'...

[popdonnelly]

I don't see what your comments have to do with the issue in question.

[Eagles6]

I'm not a lawyer but I would think that the having the defendant testify or not, whether in the defense all along or brought about by what happened in court is none of the judge's concern. I would think that if he punished the defense because he thought he was strung along would be grounds for appeal.

[freekitty]

Does anyone recognize that these are Americans? I don't.