Archive   |   Live Q&As   |   RSS Feeds RSS   |   E-mail Dan  |  
Page 3 of 5   <       >

The Libby-Cheney Bummer

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

"'It's possible that I occasionally tuned her out,' Ms. Abramson replied."

Also -- and this part I witnessed myself -- after the jury had gone home early on account of the snow, defense lawyers played for the judge three video clips of NBC News Washington bureau chief and star prosecution witness Tim Russert that they want shown to the jury to impeach Russert's credibility.

During a long cross-examination, Russert had professed ignorance of the fact that one advantage prosecutors were offering him, when they let him give a deposition rather than go before the grand jury, was that he could be accompanied by counsel. Russert insisted that he had no idea that lawyers could not accompany witnesses into the grand jury room -- which they aren't.

The defense team yesterday found video clips of Russert in 1998, in which he very authoritatively stated that witnesses are not allowed to bring lawyers into the grand jury room. The prosecution objected, saying it was an irrelevant point and that Russert's statements were from nine years ago and that he might well have been reading something that someone else prepared for him.

When the judge said he certainly wouldn't let the new evidence be introduced unless Russert were given a chance to confront it, the defense team asked that Russert be recalled. So he might be coming back.

Here's an Associated Press summary of the testimony in the trial.

David Corn writes in The Nation: "The trial will end with a whimper, not a bang."

But the closing arguments, now set for Tuesday, could still offer up a little fire. As Corn puts it: "Fitzgerald will sum up his narrow case: Libby told investigators he knew nothing certain or official about Wilson's wife at the time of the leak and only shared scuttlebutt with reporters, but the testimony of three journalists and five past and present government officials disputes that."

The defense team, by contrast, "will attack the credibility and memory of each prosecution witness and toss out evidence-free speculation about what was really happening behind the scenes regarding the CIA leak--all to confuse, or raise a reasonable doubt. [Defense attorney Ted] Wells also has suggested he might argue that Russert--contrary to Russert's testimony--did know about Wilson's wife and might have indeed shared this tidbit with Libby."

John Podhoretz writes in his New York Post opinion column: "Can Libby prevail? It's easy to see how a few jurors at least might decide that they've just been subjected to a nonsense case that should be thrown into the garbage. But all 12 jurors siding with Libby? That's a little like trying to fill an inside straight.

"As a fellow Libby watcher put it to me yesterday, 'A hung jury is what he's probably hoping for.'

"At which point, the question will be: Will prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald fold up his tent or is he going to devote more time and resources trying to destroy my friend Scooter Libby's life by putting him on trial a second time?"


<          3           >


© 2007 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive