Libby's Theory of Defense

The jury continues to hear tapes of Scooter Libby's grand jury testimony today. Swopa at Firedoglake and the Media Bloggers' Association's bloggers are live-blogging.

I can't draw conclusions until I've read transcripts of all of his testimony. But, as to what Libby's lawyers will argue to the jury, here is the "Theory of Defense Instruction" (pdf) they have asked Judge Walton to read to the jurors as part of his instructions at the end of the case.

A defendant is entitled to a "theory of defense" instruction, but there has to be evidence presented during the trial to support it. I don't think Judge Walton will give it exactly as written, but it's revealing in showing where Team Libby is headed.

Here is Libby's brief (pdf)on other instructions the jury should receive, including the perjury and false statement counts. Also, here are Fitz' objections (pdf) to Libby's proposed instructions.

I'm just linking to the pleadings themselves because most of Libby's pleadings are in a pdf format that doesn't allow me to cut and paste sections. (Fitz's pleadings usually do allow it.)

< Kabuki Theatre: The Nonbinding Surge Resolutions | WI. Hmong Hunter Killing: Retaliation? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    he's brought back the "No reason to lie" (none / 0) (#1)
    by scribe on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 12:26:02 PM EST
    argument - which seemed to have bit him in the butt earlier....

    I'm betting, just based on fear of revealing he really did have a reason to lie, he won't testify.

    In your judgement: effective? (none / 0) (#2)
    by sphealey on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 12:29:41 PM EST
    In your judgement will[1] those documents be effective in Mr. Libby's defense, particuarly in light of the Grand Jury testimony heard today?


    [1] I went back and forth between "would" and "will" here.  "Would" implies that the documents are accepted by Walton as written; "will" implies that they will be modifed to some extent.

    Perjury (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 01:52:40 PM EST

    F: Tell me about conversation with Mr. Russert.

    L:....I remeber being taken aback by that [Russert saying Plame was CIA], and I said "No, I don't know that."  Intentionally, because I didn't want him to take me as confirming it.   Because I had forgotten by then that I had ever known.

    Pretty convoulted answer if you ask me. If I were on the jury this answer would not help Libby one bit.

    It seems ... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Sailor on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 02:37:02 PM EST
    Libby is Trying Out Alternate Strategy Theories (AKA T.O.A.S.T.)

    that's good, sailor! (none / 0) (#7)
    by scribe on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 03:39:02 PM EST
    I know that now, and (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 02:41:45 PM EST
    I knew that then. I just forgot that that I knew that then until later, when I remembered that I actually do know that now. It just wasn't a good time for me to know that. I knew that. Then.

    Question: (none / 0) (#6)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 03:08:11 PM EST
    Why do the proposed instructions only refer to Valerie Plame as "Ambassador Wilson's wife" or "Wilson's wife"? Is there a reason they're not referring to her by her name?

    I can see why they might want to mention once or twice the connection between Wilson and Plame, but they never even refer to her by name once. What gives?

    to their credit (none / 0) (#8)
    by cpinva on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 04:43:46 PM EST
    it's mercifully brief. convoluted, but brief. which, if you're going to be convoluted, is probably a good thing.

    first off, what mature man still goes by his nickname "scooter"? geez, that's got to be good for at least 6 guilty votes right off the bat. :)

    second, why would he have access to other people's notes, to "refresh" his memory? shouldn't his own notes have sufficed?

    they may find him guilty, just because he's treating them like idiots.

    Is this true? (none / 0) (#9)
    by ding7777 on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 06:06:37 PM EST
    Officially, Wilson would not have known who requested his trip?

    Libby GJ Testimony: who told Wilson that the VP had requested his trip?  He wouldn't have learned that officially, so maybe he was told unofficially