Ed*ard Teller @ 39

I figured out why Fitz hasn’t said anything about Toensing. ‘Cause she’s going to be indicted should evidence show the B-1 WaPo headline got through to a juror. And it just might show already. Probably a juror has quietly complained to Walton.

Walton should certainly instruct the jury to disregard the Toensing article and to let him know if they saw it. But I don’t see Toensing being indicted without proof of intent to influence the jury. Free press and all that.

Toensig is the principal fundraiser for team Libby…and is licensed to practice in the District of Columbia.

That makes her a part of the Defense “team” and responsible for avoiding actions that can violate the terms for fair trials.

It may be that Judge Walton, like many others interested in the case, got a “heads up” about the Toensig op-ed before publication. Hopefully he was able to take actions to secure the jury, having staff call them to tell them not to read the Sunday papers at all…

He may have done a poll of the jury to discern if they had been exposed.

If he was able to do that he may have been able to avoid the issue and tell Fitz and Wlls in advance that jurors had been immunized from being tainted by it.

Still Toensig is technically “an officer of the Court” just as much as either of the main lawyers.

Imagine if either Fitz or Wells had published such bird-liner on the eve of the closing arguments? They would surely have been disbarred and the opposing attorney would have called for a mistrial, I suspect.

I think that Walton will have a little gift for Ms. Toensig once th main business of the day is completed.

I thought by WH conspiracy, he was referring to a conspiracy to let Scooter take all the blame (as Wells implied in opening). Not THE conspiracy that we all know existed.

Like what others have replied, I also took the non-conspiracies mentioned to mean conspiracies directed against Libby, rather than the original conspiracy directed against the Wilsons. Z’s summation first nailed Team Libby defense for their opening statements implying that there was some “protect Rove, scapegoat Libby” WH conspiracy. Major mistake to do that, and then not present any evidence to support the charge.

From the context of Z’s presentation I read it as refuting defense bullshit — ie

This is a case about lying,

not a case about “WH conspiracy to scapegoat Libby and save Karl Rove,”

not a case about NBC conspiracy to “get back at Scooter Libby & OVP”

That makes sense.

The prosecution is being pristine about trying the case they have [not the one we want them to try].

L&G, this is a case about lying, Not conspiracy, No WH conspiracy, no NBC conspiracy;…

I don’t mean to nit-pic, but did Z really have to insert that?

sigh

From the context of Z’s presentation I read it as refuting defense bullshit — ie

This is a case about lying,

not a case about “WH conspiracy to scapegoat Libby and save Karl Rove,”

not a case about NBC conspiracy to “get back at Scooter Libby & OVP”

none @ 18

I’ve felt through the whole trial that the govt was doing a good job of showing the technical fact that Libby lied his head off, but not doing enough to say why Libby should go to prison if Libby didn’t leak classified info that got people killed. I’m afraid the idea that this is a political persecution might somehow stick. They need to defuse that and explain the importance of the obstruction, that Libby kept investigators away not only from past crimes but also from ongoing crimes.

political persecution?This is a Rep. led DOJ bringing charges against a Rep. White House official.Your comment makes no sense.

That comprises b oth intent and consipring to cover it up.

The only reason one could think was put in was to get the talking point out on grounds for mistrial. Also to try and open a window of opportunity to strike this evidence down in a later trial reagardinmg IIPA instead of obstruction.