But the problem is a lot of what he is saying he's taking directly from the defense pitch. Denis noted that Wells called Libby the fall guy for the administration.
We all questioned that when Wells said it. The Libby defense was that the administration NEEDED a fall guy, and that Libby was that fall guy, and therefore the jury should let him off no matter what it seemed he did.
Denis is saying that this generated sympathy for Libby, but not enough to sway them to ignore what they saw as his lying.
I'm sure other things he is saying could be helpful on appeal, but the bit about wondering where Rove was came straight from the Well's defense.
None of that really mattered. Facts didn't matter, defense didn't matter. To the DC jury, Libby was ONLY and THE ONLY proxy for administration - "WHERE WAS ROVE, WHERE WERE THE OTHERS...?"
That's what they really wanted, even if it didn't have anything to do with Libby's trial which they were supposedly there to judge. It was about justifying Fitz's "investigation" for them. They were ONLY disappointed that Libby was that proxy.
Well, the prosecution would certainly argue that in opposing an appeal, but I think the defense would be more likely to link the "where's Rove?" question to the prosecution's closing argument.