I. Do. Not. Believe. This.

Wells sets aside remarks he’s worked on for however long, to do a playground-ish rebuttal to “personal attacks on me, wah, waaah”.

If I was in the jury I would think, “This man is a total fool for not giving his prepared statement first”. And if I were a potential client, I would be an EX-potential client.

Un. B. Lievable.

It’s Looseheadprop’s “Scottish defense!” HAHAHAHA!

And Well’s also said “Maybe I was drunk”…

Great Well’s is introducing Scottish Law while drunk…

Maybe this is going to be used as grounds for appeal!

BTW When Wells says “some European Countries allow for ‘not proved’” I wonder if he realizes that Scotland isn’t a COUNTRY…and if he can name ONE OTHER place that such a sentence option is offered!

I think I’d feel kind of insulted…

LIbby did something only an innocent person would do , got to VP, I didn’t do anything. Clear suggestion once they cleared Rove, He goes to VP, only an innocent person would do this, VP writes in his own handwriting, It’s not right to clear Rove and sacrifice Libby. It was written and it exists. [Damn Wells is setting himself to get REAMED since the note says nothing about Rove.]

The note not only doesn’t say that there WAS a conspiracy. it doesn’t say that Libby is INNOCENT…it just says that ONE aide should not be protected while sacrificing the one asked by the Pres. to put his neck in the meatgrinder.

That says nada about “innocence”. It says loads about an effort to CLAIM INNOCENCE. And note that this is coming from THE MAN that already told Libby on June 6th (or 12th) about Wilson’s wife…and ordered him to leak the NIE to reporters. So much for the feigned assertions of innocence about firing anyone who leaked classified information…or not attacking Wilson or other critics through a litany of leaks.
Here. indeed, is one more time that the VP could have said to Libby…but I DID tell you…clearly CHENEY would have been covering up for Libby!

Indeed, Libby knew that ROVE had spoken to Novak and confirmed that Plame worked at the CIA…so he KNEW that Rove wasn’t innocent EITHER.

He simply wanted the same “Get Out of Jail Free” Card that Rove was obtaining.

There is no reference to his “innocence” in that note. It’s exactly what would be expected in a cover-up.

There’s nothing wrong with circumstantial evidence, it’s got to be poweful evidence. it’s got to bebuilt on strong foundation if you’re going to change someon’s life.

That’s Wells defending Libby.
Tell that to the kids in Iraq.

Well’s is using one of my ploys.If you can’t convince them,confuse them.

Bedrock principals of American Justice.
I like them.
Why is this administration (Libby included) working so hard to destroy them?

Fitz might note that hypocrisy in his rebuttal, and note that Libby now seeks to take advantage of the principles he would deny to others. But Fitz should follow with the command that the jurors give Fitz the thorough benefit of all these bedrock principles, then find Libby guilty, so there is no doubt that the trial was fair and that the evidence was sufficient to eliminate all reasonable doubt from the minds of jurors as to Libby’s guilt.