[Steve_Seattle]

I was just re-reading firedoglake's account of Fitz's closing remarks, how they were amazed Wells didn't object to all the conspiracy stuff Fitz was throwing at the jury. Jeffress finally objected, but only after the damage was done. I think this was deliberate by the defense. I think they thought was hanging hemself by his own petard. It is prohibited for a prosecutor to present closing remarks based on evidence that wasn't introduced in the trial, and that is EXACTLY what Fitz did.

Fitz was lying when he said he was simply arguing Libby's state of mind. No, he was prejudicing the jury by arguing that a covert agent was outed, that her life was jeopardized, and that this was done because the admin was attacking a critic for exposing its lies about pre-war Iraq intelligence. Fitz had provided no evidence, other than hearsay, for any of this. I think Wells was thinking, "Thank you very much, Fitz."

[AmishDude]

Possibly. My guess is that Wells was thinking "appeal" since the beginning.

[GOP_Muzik]

Interesting take. Irregardless it certainly sets up easy grounds for an appeal.

[STARWISE]

I agree .. appeal insurance. Fitz was/is out of his gourd.

[Vigilanteman]

If Libby draws a fine or jail for outing a covert agent who really wasn't a covert agent, then Leaky Leahy should be hanged for getting a covert agent killed who really was a covert agent.

[CutePuppy]

Exactly. Fitz was shopping for jury in DC from the very start it was his only chance.

And Libby's team was getting appeals ducks in a row from the very start, and there is more than enough there.

[LS]

Judge Andrew Napolitano was just on Fox radio saying that the otherwise brilliant defense atty. really screwed up by even HINTING that Libby would take the stand, then not putting him on. AN said this tells a jury something is wrong, and worse, the judge let in certain evidence based on the presumption that Libby would testify, and was himself angry that he didn't.