There is so much reasonable doubt its crazy….not to meantion there is no reason for the lie in the first place. It serves zero purpose.

Andrea Mitchell lost her script….this is too funny.

Fitz should rest his case right now. That re-direct was devastating.

I especially liked this bit:

F: Which is bigger news, possible indictment or actual indictment?

T: Actual indictment.

F: What do you remember personally from October 28, 2005?

T: Press conference was a network interrupt, which was significant — and then hearing my name, which was jolting. And then Brian Williams talking me about the case and asking me to explain my role, which I did. First time in my life I’d heard my name spoken by a prosecutor.

The judge would not allow the defense to bring in a memory expert, but Russert and Fitzgerald provided the key point – folks forget stuff that seems to be unimportant.

Do you suppose they will submit an expert witness bill to the Libby Defense Trust, or is that pro bono by Fitzgerald?

As to whether Wells has raised any reasonable doubts, you might start by asking whether there are any reasonable doubters here.

If there are then riddle me this:

1. Grenier told the FBI he wasn’t sure if he told Libby about Plame, told the grand jury he wasn’t sure, then, in 2005, changed his mind and realized he was sure.

Anyone have any doubts about that?

2. Grossman, a friend of Wilson, told the jury he mentioned Plame to Libby face to face. He told the FBI it was over the phone. No memos, no other witnesses, no records.

Any doubts about Grossman?

3. Schmall, the CIA briefer, has no recollection of discussing Plame with Libby. However, it is in his notes, so he is sure he did.

Any doubts?

4. Judy Miler says that looking at her notebook for June 23 fully refreshed her memory of her Libby conversation. However, when she sees the name “Valery Flame” or Joe Wilson’s phone number in her notebook, nothing is refreshed at all.

She also spent 85 days in jail protecting sources, but can’t remember now who they were.

Any doubts?

5. Re “Russert had no reason to lie” – really?

If he admitted that he had told Libby about Plame, he would have been subpoenaed to reveal sources. *IF* his source was Mitchell, he would not even have reporter-source protection to fight about (and lose) in court.

So Russert tells the truth, gives up Mitchell, she goes to court and loses – how would that affect Russert’s ability to lead the Washington Bureau – do you suppose other reporters would still tell him their stories?

So – Russert *may* have lied to avoid chilling other sources and his own newsroom – that gives him about five million reasons a year to lie.

Impossible? Or might someone entertain some doubts?

C’mon – if you can’t see gaping holes in Fitzgerald’s presentation, that only shows the weakness of your examination, not the strength of his case.

And yes, I am well aware of the stronger points of his presentation. I got the impression folks here were unaware of any weaknesses at all.

SEEMS LIKE “REASONABLE DOUBT” TO ME!!

Also, isn’t it ironic that Wells is up there attempting to impugn the integrity of Timmeh due to his not recalling a given appearance on television while his client’s entire defense rests on the assumption that he learned something, allegedly forgot it, leaked that something he’d forgotten to the press, then relearned it from someone who didn’t know it?

Pepsi up my nose.

I especially liked this bit:

F: Which is bigger news, possible indictment or actual indictment?

T: Actual indictment.

F: What do you remember personally from October 28, 2005?

T: Press conference was a network interrupt, which was significant — and then hearing my name, which was jolting. And then Brian Williams talking me about the case and asking me to explain my role, which I did. First time in my life I’d heard my name spoken by a prosecutor.

The judge would not allow the defense to bring in a memory expert, but Russert and Fitzgerald provided the key point – folks forget stuff that seems to be unimportant.

Do you suppose they will submit an expert witness bill to the Libby Defense Trust, or is that pro bono by Fitzgerald?

As to whether Wells has raised any reasonable doubts, you might start by asking whether there are any reasonable doubters here.

If there are then riddle me this:

1. Grenier told the FBI he wasn’t sure if he told Libby about Plame, told the grand jury he wasn’t sure, then, in 2005, changed his mind and realized he was sure.

Anyone have any doubts about that?

2. Grossman, a friend of Wilson, told the jury he mentioned Plame to Libby face to face. He told the FBI it was over the phone. No memos, no other witnesses, no records.

Any doubts about Grossman?

3. Schmall, the CIA briefer, has no recollection of discussing Plame with Libby. However, it is in his notes, so he is sure he did.

Any doubts?

4. Judy Miler says that looking at her notebook for June 23 fully refreshed her memory of her Libby conversation. However, when she sees the name “Valery Flame” or Joe Wilson’s phone number in her notebook, nothing is refreshed at all.

She also spent 85 days in jail protecting sources, but can’t remember now who they were.

Any doubts?

5. Re “Russert had no reason to lie” – really?

If he admitted that he had told Libby about Plame, he would have been subpoenaed to reveal sources. *IF* his source was Mitchell, he would not even have reporter-source protection to fight about (and lose) in court.

So Russert tells the truth, gives up Mitchell, she goes to court and loses – how would that affect Russert’s ability to lead the Washington Bureau – do you suppose other reporters would still tell him their stories?

So – Russert *may* have lied to avoid chilling other sources and his own newsroom – that gives him about five million reasons a year to lie.

Impossible? Or might someone entertain some doubts?

C’mon – if you can’t see gaping holes in Fitzgerald’s presentation, that only shows the weakness of your examination, not the strength of his case.

And yes, I am well aware of the stronger points of his presentation. I got the impression folks here were unaware of any weaknesses at all.

Executive Orders do not carry the weight of law outside the scope of precedence or letter do they?

This is the equivalent of a signing statement.

At the end of the Executive Order 13292 it says

“(c) Nothing in this order limits the protection afforded any information by other provisions of law, including the Constitution, Freedom of Information Act exemptions, the Privacy Act of 1974, and the National Security Act of 1947, as amended.”

I would assume that any National Security law (including the Intelligence Agents Identity Protection Act) would supercede acts undertaken under this order if they violated those laws.

In other words, the President cannot order an executive action (even under the veil of an Executive Order) that is Unconstitutional or illegal by statute.

It seems unlikely you ‘leak’ something which is declassified and is set to be made public.

Timing is everything. When did this or that happen and did someone lie about the sequence or timing to cover-up some culpability. The time-line is crucial to a case like this.

It could be they’ll not only show Libby obstructed, but that by showing the whole web of activity and the timeline it will become apparent who authorized it, whether it was indeed declassified, and who went into the field to leak it. In short the whole house of cards will probably come tumbling down when Fitzgerald gives his summation and lays it all out.

Has Wells managed to raise reasonable doubt about anything?

I have a reasonable doubt in Wells’ ability as a lawyer

does that count ???

I understand that everybody is entitled to a defense, and i don’t hold scooter’s obvious guilt against Wells, but the man has continually pissed off and alienated the jury for no apparent reason. If Wells were my attorney, we would have had a few heated arguments by now

QuentinCompson @ 37

How often does a judge, say, walk over to the next courtroom for free advice?
-

if you understand that our legal system is built on prescedents (previous cases), then you understand that there is ALWAYS some “Free Advice” involved in American legal decisions

Also, isn’t it ironic that Wells is up there attempting to impugn the integrity of Timmeh due to his not recalling a given appearance on television while his client’s entire defense rests on the assumption that he learned something, allegedly forgot it, leaked that something he’d forgotten to the press, then relearned it from someone who didn’t know it?

Libby will fry.

Moch Dem @ 3
—-Andrew Sullivan weighs in:
“The alternative explanation is that Cheney was scared – so scared he took a huge risk that eventually led to the loss and public humiliation of his most trusted aide, Scooter Libby. But why would he be scared? The most plausible inference is that he knew he had deliberately rigged the WMD evidence to ensure that the war took place. He knew, even if the president was blithely convinced otherwise, that the WMD evidence was weak, and his success in distorting the evidence was threatened by Wilson. Not that Wilson had all the goods – Cheney must have known this was a minor matter. It was the danger that journalists or skeptics pulling on the thread that Wilson represented could get closer to the much bigger truth of WMD deception. This is a huge deal for one single reason: if true, it means that the White House acted in bad faith in making the case for war. There is no graver charge than that. In fact, if true, it’s impeachable. I don’t want to believe it. But I find it increasingly plausible that this is what Patrick Fitzgerald smells in the Libby case. He can’t prove it yet; he may never prove it. But he’s getting warmer; and he won’t give up.”
————
Mandrake @ 27
This has been obvious to so many of us for so long, it is amazing to see the light bulb go off in Sullivan’s head just now. Okay, is everybody finally waking up here? Sheesh. Still, better late than never.
————
fahrender @ 103
andrew sullivan having an epiphany is a good thing but we’ve still got a long way to go before we’re even close to “everyone”.

The only way Sullivan could keep the light bulb in his head dark is if he had his head up his . . . If I had no idea who Sullivan was I would have sworn that he was being sarcastic.