|
blogging transcription, and I suspect that Wells' threw this game. It was a terrible defense. I think I could have put on a better defense myself, and I'm not even a lawyer. First off, he says Libby is the scapegoat of a WH/Rove conspiracy. Then he presents no evidence--nothing!--to support this claim. (It's certainly arguable, but he didn't argue it--he just threw it out there.) Secondly, he relied in all pre-trial and early trial rulings on a purported "bad memory" defense, but never put Libby on the stand--which is essential to a "bad memory" defense. (Even the judge said so.) Thirdly, he continually throughout the trial kept calling Valerie Plame "the wife"--a bad, bad habit, which I'm sure he picked up from Libby and Cheney, designed to alienate every woman on the jury and maybe all the men as well. (Fitz finally called him on it--in a beautiful trial moment, in Fitz's close--"This is a human being," he said--not "the wife.") And, I swear, I was thinking by this time that Wells was working for Bush, Cheney and Rove. Finally, Wells was all over the map, in his close, and ended by CRYING--shedding tears--in front of jury, saying, "This man has been under my protection for a month. Give him back to me!"
I mean, it was unbelievable. I was open-mouthed. What can Wells have possibly been thinking?
Meanwhile, Fitz wove an iron net around Libby, with a clear, methodical, case and excellent presentation. Fitz was economical and dead on. Wells was a wild man.
I suppose, if you don't have a case, that's when you use histrionics--if you think it will help your client. That's your job, after all. Or maybe after Bush, Cheney and Rove all told Wells to "go jump in lake," that's all he had left. That could be it--not him throwing the case, but all those promises to help Libby evaporating. Only Cheney could testify to how busy Libby was (besides Libby himself), re his memory, and as to how Libby could have gotten all mixed up about Cheney being the one who told him Plame's identity. Only Rove could testify why he outed Plame to Novak, and what roll he played in making Libby the fall guy. Only Bush could testify whether or not any of this was authorized by him.
A third possibility is that this entire affair is an "Aspen" conspiracy, to which Libby has agreed. My sense of him is that he is a true believer sort of NeoCon, and may think that he is protecting the Big Plan (invasion of Iran). This may be why Fitz was permitted by the "powers that be" to go this far, but no further. There is an alternative theory that he felt that Libby was the weak spot in the conspiracy, and went for broke getting this conviction--and had to make deals with Ari Fleischer, Rove, Judith Miller and others--operatives of the outings--in order to pressure the topmost culprits, Cheney and Bush. I favor this theory. But it could be argued that things are going according to plan, from the Bush Junta point of view. One of the most dangerous things they've done (dangerous to themselves) was this frontal assault on the CIA, and, if it stops here--with Libby as the fall guy, and no one prosecutable on the main crime, because of Libby's obstruction--they have weathered it.
And in all of these scenarios, a serious defense of Libby doesn't really figure. Either Wells threw the case, or the Bush Junta threw the case (by not showing up). Wells may be in on it. Who knows? I'm just saying--the defense stunk. Granted, the defense is not obliged to "put on a case," merely to defend and cast doubt. But they were truly lousy even at that--and, as I said, seemed to go out of their way to insult the jury.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
