Latest Libby Filings...strategy's clearer, could spell trouble for Fitzboy

And I agreed that in most situations, a prosecutor would like to have a motive/reason that the defendant acted the way he did.....here a reason to lie. It can, at times, certainly make the prosecutor's job (ie. convincing the jury a crime was committed) easier.

None of that changes the FACT, however, that motive is not an element of the crime of perjury and therefore the prosecutor does not have to show any motive.

As the trial progresses (assuming it goes to trial), a good prosecutor can gauge whether he/she is losing the jury because they can't show why. At that point.....if it happened in this case.....I could see Fitz arguing as to why he thinks Libby lied but concluding with something along the lines of...."Ladies and gentlemen, the defense has argued that Mr. Libby had no reason to lie and therefore he must not have done so. But we know that simply is not the case. He may have lied because of X or he may have lied because of Y.....in the end, ladies and gentlemen, only Mr. Libby knows. But what we do know.....is that in front of a grand jury, while under oath, Mr. Libby said Z....and knew it to be untrue....and that's the only thing that matters."

Now would such a hypothetical closing sway a jury? Who knows? Juries' decisions are not always easy to predict.

 

Well, the side that loses on a motion....especially a potentially dispositive one such as this is always going to "go as far on appeal as they can take it."

As far as how the particular Justices you mention would react to this case......you seem to be insinuating that they would not look favorably on Judge Walton's opinion. If I've misinterpreted your "Hmmm" all apologies. In any case, I'm not so sure how they'd react to Judge Walton's opinion. Roberts worked in the Attorney General's office and in the Solicitor's office before going into private practice so Fitz's role would not be completely foreign to him. Alito served as a U.S. Attorney and therefore knows full well what the job entails.

Does any of that mean they're more likely to affirm Walton's opinion? Maybe not. But they both certainly are aware of the powers and limitations a USAtty faces and wouldn't need much in the way of explanation as to what sort of oversight Fitz was subject to.

 

Latest Fitz Filing...strategy's clearer, could spell trouble for Scooter

VP Cheney - witness for the prosecution?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/24/AR2006052402597.html

From Special Counsel's filing yesterday:
"The fact that comments regarding Wilson’s wife were included among the Vice President’s annotations also supports the proposition that defendant’s conversation with the Vice President regarding Mr. Wilson’s wife more likely than not occurred shortly after the publication of the Wilson Op Ed, rather than later, as defendant claimed. Evidence placing defendant’s conversation with the Vice President shortly after the publication of the Wilson Op Ed also corroborates the accounts of a number of government witnesses who will testify that defendant discussed Mr. Wilson’s wife on or before July 8, 2003. Thus, the annotated Wilson Op Ed is highly, and uniquely, relevant to a determination regarding the truthfulness of defendant’s testimony that he did not recall information regarding Mr. Wilson’s wife’s employment prior to his conversation with Tim Russert on July 11, 2003."

 

Latest court rulings... could spell trouble for Scooter

A former White House aide facing perjury charges will get only a prosecutor's summary of classified documents assessing the damage to national security from the leak of a CIA officer's identity, a federal judge ruled Friday.
U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton also said lawyers for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby must settle for a prosecutor's version of information contained in secret government documents that describe CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history.
Walton repeated his desire to prevent Libby's defense team from turning the trial into a debate on the legitimacy of the war in Iraq or the accuracy of Wilson's statements in the op-ed piece in The Times.
The judge said what matters is whether Libby lied to a grand jury and the FBI about what he told three reporters - Judith Miller of The Times; Matthew Cooper of Time magazine; and Tim Russert of NBC - about Plame.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060603/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_3

Looks like Libby’s strategy isn’t so compelling after all.