Libby is toast, unless... (Zeidenberg is destroying the defense's case)

[displacedtexan]

From firedoglake's live-blogging the summation (by Zeidenberg):

Consider how amazingly sharp the details are? Libby can remember 8 months after, every detail of conversation that Rove had with Novak and what Novak told Rove, but he can't remember out of 9 conversation sthat he himself has about Wilson's wife, bc it's a trivial detail? The same trivial detail he learned from ROve, and yet he can remember it with no difficulty and no notes.

When you consider Libby's testimony, there's a pattern of always forgetting about Wilson's wife. He remembers Ari conversation, talk about future, Miami Dolphins, Remembers the Dolphins, doesn't remember talking about Wilson's wife. Remembers talking about NIE iwht Judy. Not abotu wife. Remembers talking about declassification with Addinton, but not the wife. Convenient pattern. Is that purposeful.

And here's my "unless" fear...

Have you either read (or seen the movie), Runaway Jury?

[speedoo]

1. Yeah, he's toast. If he wasn't considering a plea until now...

Libby's gotta be thinkang about taking a deal now.

If it's still on the table, of course.

[napi21]

2. My guess is the deal is still available IF he gives up something BIG

like .....er....hmmm...Unka Dick?????

[displacedtexan]

5. One can only hope.

I can't wait to read what Wells (def. attorney) tries to do
during his summation.

Popping the corn now.

[speedoo]

11. Zeidenberg has already attacked the defense summation.

Shredded the "memory" defense. Told the jury to watch out for a "materiality" argument and then talked about the devastating effects of outing a covert agent.

All Wells can do is try to obfuscate. Shiny objects.

Fitz has the last word, and he will shred whatever Wells attempts.

Unless there is something funny going on with the jury, Libby is indeed toast.

[displacedtexan]

3. Here's what Zeidenberg just told the jury...

He has had WH stake its credibility on it, if they find out he was involved, he would have to retract that. Now the FBI comes. It appears that this woman was a covert agent. He can tell the truth and take his chances. Or he can lie. And L&G, he took the second choice. He made up a story that he thought would cover it. He knew he had a note learning of it from CIA. That's an official source. He had to come up with a way to account for that note, I forgot and learned anew for the first time. Russert told me that all the reporters knew it, and all I did was pass on gossip.

11:11

That is the story he told the FBI

L&G, this is a case about lying, Not conspiracy, No WH conspiracy, no NBC conspiracy; Libby not here because of bad conduct of others. He's here because of his own decision. He decided to lie to the GJ. When you consider all the evidence, the govt has established that the defendant lied to the FBI, lied to GJ, obstructed justice.

Thank you.

The "Blame Russert" defense is a stink bomb.

[longship]

4. But there's no deal on the table.

Fitz ain't dealin'. Our boy is goin' down the long way.

[speedoo]

6. If Fitz "ain't dealin".... he must already have Cheney wrapped up.

Because it's obvious that Cheney is the next target. At least to me.

[pink-o]

9. ...

Your lips to God's ear!!!

[displacedtexan]

8. I'd kiss you if you were here!

[rodeodance]

10. oh, there is always a potential deal. Even as jury if ready to come back

in-----a deal can be made.

[gratuitous]

7. A plea deal would be unusual at this stage

But not unheard-of. Libby would have to have something big, and I mean really big, to get the prosecution to back off the conviction they may be closing in on. And if the prosecution feels as strongly as it talks during closing arguments, it may not be inclined to listen to any overtures from the defendant.

Post conviction, though, in order to get a lesser sentence, the prosecution might deal with Libby and his lawyers if Libby is willing to rat out his co-conspirators (read Cheney).

[displacedtexan]

12. FDL will start the Wells thread shortly.

Just a heads up, y'all.

[napi21]

13. I thought Wells wouldn't be up until after luch? n/t

[displacedtexan]

14. Wells is up now.

[displacedtexan]

15. A Plea from FDL on refreshing the page:

“The live-blogging is creating enormous demands on the FDL servers. For that reason, Emptywheel is updating only every 20 minutes or so, and time-stamping each update. Please do not “reload” the page more frequently than that.”

[leftofthedial]

16. the "I don't recall" defense

has been a fascist stand-by since Nurnberg.

It was perfected by ronnie raygun.

[displacedtexan]

18. It's obvious that Wells didn't prepare for Zeidenberg.

Wells has nothing.

[displacedtexan]

17. And here we go: Wells defense of Libby is based on inadmissible evidence and...

this little gem:

"where the stakes are a man's reputation, a man's life."

Wells is either an idiot, or he's purposely lying.

He began his summation with:

Walton, members of proscution, members of jury. I was sitting listening to prosecution listen to what I said, after a few minutes I said, maybe I was drunk, it sure sounded like I said a lot of things I could no deliver on. Prosecution said, there were a very few words. I heard that true. Prosecution said Wells said that but then he played you GJ, the rest of the conversation. You are going to get instructions exactly what the charges are.

[displacedtexan]

19. Wells' summation has got to be humiliating for Libby!

Let me talk about Libby's defense. 5 counts. You're going to get a verdict sheet, 5 counts. elements will be discussed.

Count 1 Obstruction, based on Russert and Cooper

Count 2 Tim Russert

Count 3 Cooper

Count 4 Russert

Count 5 Cooper

Libby had not been charge with leaking classified information.

As I said, wrt the conversations with Russert and Cooper, they're he said she said, there's no recording. Analogizing as if you're laying on beach, you couldn't remember conversation four months later.

Libby didn't get to lay on the beach, he didn't get to see his wife and family. He deals with important issues. No one disputes that he worked long hours or dealt with important issues.

There's a madness, even putting the question, the notion that someone woudl get charged with this.

Same defense to every count, government hasn't established beyond reasonable doubt, they've got to prove intentional lie. They have not proved he acted with criminal intent. Not that you made a mistake, not that you were confused.

Libby didn't get to "lay" on the beach?

Ouch!

(WRT- With regard to)

Libby should've defended himself.

$5 million for this asshat?

[displacedtexan]

20. OK, this part is really stupid.

First charge is just based on Russert's word. Based on credibility of Russert, Libby is facing 3 felony counts, his whole life. I said in opening you don't have to find Russert is a liar. You don't have to find that he took stand and intentionally lied. You have to find that Russert, based on testimony is not sufficiently reliable that any reliable jury can convict a person beyond reliable doubt. You don't have to decide he lied. What Russert is saying is it's impossible. I would submit that he just doesn't recall.

So... the "Libby's bad memory defense" has morphed into the "Russert's bad memory defense."

I wonder if the jury is buying any of this.

[displacedtexan]

21. Here's a great link to Libby/Plame case documents & articles

CIA Leak/Valerie Plame Outing Scandal

[displacedtexan]

22. My favorite FDL reader comment so far

Is this one:

Attaturk says:
February 20th, 2007 at 9:21 am

You know I’ve been a trial lawyer for a long time now and I’m pretty sure I’ve never heard a lawyer start their summation with…

MAYBE I WAS DRUNK

That’s some “smooooooooooooooooth” lawyerin’


LOL!

[theboss]

23. I ultimately don't think the jury is going to understand the nuance of the charges

And will therefore acquit.

[displacedtexan]

25. Really?

You really think that?

That would be so sad.

[displacedtexan]

24. Grasping. Straws. And all that jazz.

Wells just said to the jury:

You cannot convict Libby solely on the word of this man. Again, you do not have to conclude that he was lying. Unlike other witnesses, he didn't admit his memory unreliable. He dug in. He said he believes it. The objective evidence shows he does have a faulty memory. You may decide, I'm not sure what happened. But that's not guilty. Maybe Russert is right and Libby is wrong. Remember, Novak says he may have said it to Libby at about the same time. Novak said he might have done it. It would have been natural for a reporter to have asked that question. Maybe Libby did nothing more than confuse Novak with Russert. That's what I mean, perhaps Libby is confused. There's no question he got some things wrong in the GJ. Same thing with Cooper, maybe he got Cooper confused with Russert. What it shows it's impossible to show with any degree of certainty that Libby is guilty of intentional lies.

Wow! Just Wow! That's a defense?

Impeach Russert by claiming that Libby may have confused Russert with someone else?

[displacedtexan]

26. Lunch break.

I'll start a new thread when lunch is over.

Meanwhile, any thoughts on Wells' defense so far?

[Bake]

27. I think Scooter's going D-O-W-N.

There will be no deal; it's clear that Libby is falling on his metaphorical sword. A guilty plea would pretty much rule out the possibility of an appeal, because I don't think Fitz wll agree to a plea that allows for appeal. And the inevitable appeal is how Libby plans to stay out of the Big House until his pardon comes through.

I do believe the jury will "get it," that Scooter lied and that this idea that he just "forgot" something as significant as the Plame affair, when he was so focused on discrediting Wilson, is just not creible. The issue for the jury is really simple: he either lied, or he didn't.

Bake

[displacedtexan]

28. New thread up now.

Here