[Steve_Seattle]

I'm not sure whose words you were quoting in your post (Fitz's?), but the argument about Mitchell's testimony requiring the jurors to make a series of "speculative inferences" is hooey. Fitz's own closing remarks were a series of speculative inferences that departed from the actual testimony and evidence.

Mitchell's testimony should have been allowed, not as proof that Plame's identity was widely known, but that the CLAIM had been made by an associate of Russert. And, yes, they should have admitted into evidence her later denial. While not conclusive, this touches on the credibility of Russert and Mitchell.

[STARWISE]

My words are in caps and parentheses.

Damn right it should’ve been allowed .. it goes right to her boss, Russert’s testimony. To believe that Mitchell wouldn’t pass along this gossip to her boss is sheer lunacy. The jaws were locked of Russert, Mitchell and Gregory .. and a stealth conspiracy is what I suspect occurred. I despise them and Fitz AND Walton .. none of them have the professional integrity of a gnat.