Posted on 08/15/2007 7:06:09 AM PDT by tobyhill
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A lawyer for Oscar Wyatt has asked a judge to exclude evidence from his upcoming trial that suggests a link between the Texas oil tycoon and Saddam Hussein and a tip to Iraq about the U.S. invasion.
The motion, filed in Manhattan federal court on Monday, comes three weeks before Wyatt, former chairman and founder of Coastal Corp., goes on trial accused of paying secret kickbacks to Iraq and corrupting the U.N. oil-for-food program.
He has pleaded not guilty to charges he conspired to pay several million dollars in kickbacks to Iraq in relation to the corrupted $67 billion program.
The motion seeks to remove prosecutors' evidence that suggests payments made by Wyatt to Iraq's state oil marketing organization were passed straight on to Saddam, arguing it would prejudice the jury.
"Prior to his execution, Hussein was considered one of the world's best known and most hated Arab leaders," according to the motion, which says prosecutors do not have to prove any connection to Saddam to convict Wyatt of the charges.
Wyatt is also asking to have portions of a diary of a former Iraqi state oil agency employee, Mubdir Al-Khudhair, omitted. It suggests Wyatt provided the Iraq government with information about when the United States would invade and bomb Iraq and how many soldiers would be sent, according to the motion.
"Such actions would likely be considered repugnant by most Americans and could potentially bias," said the papers, arguing the diary was irrelevant to Wyatt's case.
One diary entry also states that "Wyatt allegedly convinced Senator Edward Kennedy to deliver a speech against the war with Iraq," according to the motion. A spokesperson for Senator Kennedy did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Well, Kennedy committed treason back in the 1980s by helping the Soviets against Reagan, so why should helping Saddam be any different?
OFF ping. This could get good....
bump
“Wyatt provided the Iraq government with information about when the United States would invade and bomb Iraq and how many soldiers would be sent”
How did Wyatt know that?
So actually telling the jury what he did might "prejudice" the jury? That's a novel defence!
I wonder if any of the MSM will pursue this Kennedy link... /sarc
I wonder how much of those oil-for-food kickbacks The Swimmer was able to pocket.
He has given money to Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Jay Rockefeller, John McCain, Joe Lieberman, the DNC, the RNC, Tom Daschle, Bob Kerrey, Bob Dole, John Cornyn, Joseph Kennedy, and a long list of others.
He certainly believes in covering all the bases.
Wyatt is also asking to have portions of a diary of a former Iraqi state oil agency employee, Mubdir Al-Khudhair, omitted. It suggests Wyatt provided the Iraq government with information about when the United States would invade and bomb Iraq and how many soldiers would be sent, according to the motion.
"Such actions would likely be considered repugnant by most Americans and could potentially bias,"
So, telling the truth and giving the jury all evidence might make him look guilty in their eyes? Hmmmm, we sure wouldn't want that.
Well at least this guy and his lawyer get an "A+" for chutzpah. The last time I looked, evidence of guilt does tend to prejudice a jury in favor of conviction.
“How did Wyatt know that?”
Senator Kennedy?
My guess is that it’s a two way street, Wyatt talking to Kennedy and Kennedy talking to Wyatt or there’s even more politicians involved.
Jay Rockefeller comes to mind...
Jay Rockefeller or Leaky Leahy?
How dare you question Sen. Kennedy’s patriotism? What’s next, his driving?
Isn't that a bit like asking the Senator if he'd like another scotch? I don't see anything particularly damning in this with respect to Senator Kennedy. Of course the accused (Wyatt) would know if there is anything more to divulge, in which case he'll have an accident in the prison showers.
“Well at least this guy and his lawyer get an “A+” for chutzpah. The last time I looked, evidence of guilt does tend to prejudice a jury in favor of conviction.”
It’s amazing isn’t it. “Your Honor, I respectfully request that you omit any evidence that points to my guilt, thank you”.
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.