Well, it’s still going on [and on and on]. I’m too biased to evaluate any of this. Ted Wells is on something of a rant.
There is one interesting thing. In his opening statement, Wells advertised that he was going to show that the whole Libby Indictment was to throw innocent Scooter Libby under the bus to protect Karl Rove. Throughout the trial, various commentors have wondered aloud, "Where did the part about Karl Rove go?" It wasn’t mentioned. Now he’s on a tirade, and talking about the whole Libby Indictment was to throw innocent Scooter Libby under the bus to protect Karl Rove. It’s just an assertion, disconnected from any evidence in the trial.
Jeffress follows. Is more coherent, more effective, but also bounces around a lot. All they’ve got is conjecture, and that’s what he’s doing – conjecturing. It’s hard to imagine a juror following what he says, though I suppose they get a transcript. He’s going from witness to witness, offering alternative explanations for each of them, in no apparent order…Ted Wells returns. He’s more under control. It’s the memory defense over and over again, with interspersed pieces of the busy guy defense. Closing arguments aren’t very interesting so far [said Mr. Mind Made Up Already].
Don’t sacrifice Scooter LIbby for how you may feel about war in Iraq or Bush Administration. Treat him the way he deserves to be treated. He worked every day to be NSA for this country. Analyze it fairly. Fight any temptation for your views if you’re Democrat whatever party. This is a man who has a wife kid. He’s been under my protection for the last month. Just give him back. Give him back to me, give him back.
[Wells gets all choked up, crying.]
Okay, we’re going to take a break.
Fitz’s Rebuttal: Patrick Fitzgerald is on fire. He’s not just trying Libby, he’s trying the Office of the Vice President and Dick Cheney [and Scooter too]. I can’t summarize this – just read it here. Who gives ashit who wins? At least somebody is telling the truth. And it sounds like a slam dunk to me [bias?].
My favorite lines:
"Her name Valerie Wilson. She had a life before Joe Wilson, but to them she wasn’t Val Wilson, she wasn’t a person, she was an argument, she was a fact to use against Wilson."
And it’s a great day for the bloggers. He’s just moved from emptywheel‘s work on Cheney’s "talking points" to eriposte‘s "two streams" analysis. He’s zoomed through almost the whole story at breakneck speed. I hope the jurors get a transcript! Fitz says:
"One more thing that corrborates. THe VP wrote week before that wife sent him on a junket. THe VP moves to number 1 talking point. You just think it’s coincidence that Cheney was writing this. There is a cloud over the VP. He wrote those columns, he had those meetings, He sent Libby off to the meeting with Judy. Where Plame was discussed. That cloud remains because the denfendant obstructed justice. That cloud was there. That cloud is something that we just can’t pretend isn’t there."
and more…
Is this about a bunch of madmen, two men. Or is about somemthing bigger, Is it about someone to whom Wilson’s wife wasn’t a person, but an argument. He focused on it June 23, July 8, July 7, focused on it when he talked to Addington. His boss thought it was important. His boss thought it was important. Did his boss forget about the wife/ One of the first thing he wrote, did his wife send him on a junket. They both talked to a briefer about it. You can’t believe that 9 witnesses remember 10 conversations the same way. There is no conspiracy. There is no memory problem. He remembers a conversatoin that did not happen. But forgets all of his. He had a motive to lie, and he lied in a way that exactly matches his motive. You don’t forget something on Thursday that you’ve passed along on Monday and Tueday. You don’t forget about important arguments. You know they talked about a cloud over the VP.,
DONT YOU THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE ENTITELD TO ANSWERS. If as a result his wife had a job, she worked at CPD, She gets dragged into newspapers. People want to find out was a law broken when people want to know, who did it. What role did Defendant play. What role did VP play? He told you he may have discussed this with VP. Don’t you think FBI desesrves straight answers. When you go in taht jury room, you commonsense will tell you hthat he made a gamble. He threw sand sin the eyes o fthe FBI. He stole the truth of the judicial system. You return guilty you give truth back.
I’ve been lots of places, seen lots of things, but I got to say that an hour of Patrick Fitzgerald is right up there with Machu Picchu and the Grand Canyon – just read it all right here…
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.