Thursday, February 15, 2007

Libby Trial: Will a Wells Let-Down Hurt Scooter?


In response to the article I wrote on the case presented by Scooter Libby's defense, Steven Prince, an old friend who is a lawyer in Minneapolis, had a few points to add. I had noted that Ted Wells, Libby's lead lawyer, in his opening argument made some bold promises to the jury. He declared he would show that Libby had been set up by the White House to protect Karl Rove. He claimed that he would show that Libby had no motive to lie because his boss, Vice President Dick Cheney, was committed to protecting Libby. Wells indicated he and Libby had a damn intriguing story to tell that would blow apart special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's case and the conventional narrative of the CIA leak story. Yet when Wells had the chance to deliver on his own hype, he went silent. During the defense team's brief and slender presentation, Wells and his co-counsels produced no testimony or evidence to support his just-you-wait sales job.

I wonder how jurors have reacted to Wells' coming up so short? Do they feel let down? Are they resentful. Prince writes:

It is true that the defense has no obligation to prove anything. That is why good defense lawyers NEVER say in their opening that they are going to prove anything they absolutely know they cannot prove. Legal burdens are one thing, but jury research suggests most jurors make up their minds during opening arguments. They often remember lawyer promises from the opening, and woe to the lawyer who does not deliver what is promised.

I did not watch the trial, but it sounds like Mr. Libby is in big trouble. If Wells repeats in his closing presentation the arguments he made at opening, it will give Fitzgerald the chance on rebuttal to remind the jury what Wells argued/promised at opening, what evidence was (or wasn't) presented on those issues, and what Wells argued at the end. It's a thin line. Fitzgerald doesn't want to suggest that Libby has any burden of proof (which would be grounds for a mistrial or successful appeal), but Fitzgerald will want to follow-up on the Libby arguments if given the opening.


In other words, I was on to something. Wells opened big: Rove set up Libby. But he didn't produce. He will end small--mainly poking at the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and insisting that the government has not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. That might work. Jurors, though, might be expecting more.

Posted by David Corn at February 15, 2007 03:41 PM

31 comments:

David B. Benson said...

David Corn --- Hope so.

Did you know that 41% of your federal taxes goes towards preparing and making war?

Saladin said...

oMr. Benson, I've read that most of our taxes are used to service this monstrosity of a debt hovering over us. How much money borrowed to make war? And as if that weren't bad enough, calculate the interest spent in pursuing wars of conquest and empire building. I guess it's six of one, half dozen of another.
Gerald from a previous thread, China and Russia do not need to launch nuclear weapons to take America down. We have been led like a sheep to the slaughter, all they have to do is boot the dollar off it's pedestal and we are history. No need for a nuclear winter or anyone else to suffer. A velvet revolution? Much easier, cheaper and cleaner.

capt said...

Stopping The Man In His Tracks



As the House continues their speechifying on the escalation, and the Senate Democrats rub their bruised egos from the Republican and Lieberman parliamentary gamesmanship preventing a vote, states have taken it upon themselves to (wait for it….gasp!) represent their constituency and speak out in a manner not seen inside the Beltway:

Watch the Youtube HERE.

On Thursday, February 15, the Iowa Senate approved, on a voice vote, a resolution in opposition to President Bush's surge in Iraq. Iowa is the third state in the nation to pass such a resolution.

At this point, there's no indication that these resolutions will fall on anything but deaf ears, but there's no denying that a momentum is growing that will hopefully pull those in Washington from their inertia into doing something to stop the war machine.

BREAKING UPDATE: Harry Reid has called a Saturday Senate vote to condemn the escalation:

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) this afternoon announced that the Senate would take a rare Saturday vote on whether to consider the House resolution, which is expected to pass that chamber Friday, with some Republican support.

If the Saturday vote succeeds, Reid said he may cancel the upcoming week-long recess, scrambling campaign plans for at least six presidential candidates.


More HERE

capt said...

Matthews lauded McCain's "maverick reputation," "jib"; admired Romney's chin



On the February 13 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, during a discussion of the Michigan Republican presidential primary, host Chris Matthews said that "there are a lot of people there ... who like the cut of [Sen.] John McCain's [AZ] jib, his independence, his maverick reputation."

Media Matters for America has documented numerous examples of the media referring to McCain as a "maverick," in addition to noting numerous reasons why that is not an apt descriptor for the senator.

Matthews also stated of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R), "[H]e's got a great chin, I've noticed." MSNBC political analyst and former Reagan communications director Pat Buchanan similarly described Romney as "an extremely handsome man." As Media Matters has noted, Matthews has previously said that Romney "has the perfect chin, the perfect hair.


More HERE

*****end of clip*****

Always asking the hardball questions.


capt

Hajji said...

Ffolks,

It is with profound joy and a great sense of relief that I share the news with you of Jill’s youngest son Grant’s departure from Iraq. He has been taking part in combat and security operations in Tal Afar, in the north and most recently outside Ar Ramadi , in the volatile Anbar province.

He has been serving with great honor long past his original release date of September, 2006 due to the stop-loss policies of the US military. Grant’s promotions and awards since his deployment to Iraq are testimony to his strength of character and his ability find a way to do what good he can in the midst of such horrible situations.

While the support of our friends and family often helped us to bolster our spirits and have assuaged many days of worry, the outpouring of positive thoughts, of hope and the deliveries of care packages from many of you have made his time more bearable and in many cases have overflowed to nurture his comrades in arms.

Several times the care packages have been re-directed into the neighborhoods he’s patrolled, to the delight of many young children.

While we are joyful at the prospect of having Grant back on friendly soil where we can fawn over him for a while before settling back into the mundane, we are mindful of the families of thousands of other soldiers, sailors and airmen whose loved ones have been lost in Iraq and Afghanistan. Every day, between 2 and 3 families of US military personnel are notified that their loved ones have been killed. Many thousands more of those servicepersons are wounded and/or psychologically maimed every year.

We urge you to turn your thoughts, prayers and actions to the support of those individuals and their families, as you have ours.

We also ask you to remember the thousands upon thousands of Iraqi families who continue to suffer the loss of a much greater number of loved ones, hundreds daily, to the meat-grinder that Iraq has become. The children, as usual in such conflict, suffer most. Malnutrition, disease and hopelessly inadequate medical care are major hurdles. They are orphaned, frightened and many are killed daily for no offense but being in the wrong place at the wrong time, often simply in the arms of their parents.

It is to those innocent children, their families and all those in the world who suffer endlessly due to the actions of politicians, war-profiteers and religious leaders who’ve forsaken their own god’s commandments that we now give our thoughts, our prayers and hopefully meaningful actions. We urge you to support only those who call for an end to such unnecessary suffering caused by the actions of governments that create environments of chaos where such evil can thrive.

Once again, we thank you for your support of us and our families.

-Tom Hodges and Jill Heatherington

Saladin said...

Capt, you meant goofball, right?

Saladin said...

Hajji, that is WONDERFUL news!! Please give both Jill and Grant a great big hug for me!!

Sal

capt said...

HAJJI&JILL&SPANKY!!!!!


THAT is the best darn news I could ever read/hear!!


Today we dance the dance of happiness and sing songs of great joy!

(^%$&&%&*&***^%&&**&&)

That is the sound of my happy feet! (I never said I was a good dancer)

Thanks for the most excellent news!


capt

Saladin said...

Sen. Obama: U.S. must support Israel's right to self defense

By Shmuel Rosner, Haaretz Correspondent

WASHINGTON - United States Senator Barack Obama, a Democrat from Illinois who is competing for his party's presidential nomination, told Haaretz on Thursday that the United States should help protect Israel from its "dangerous" enemies.

"My view is that the United States' special relationship with Israel obligates us to be helpful to them in the search for credible partners with whom they can make peace, while also supporting Israel in defending itself against enemies sworn to its destruction," he said.

"Israelis want more than anything to live in peace with their neighbors, but Israel also has real - and very dangerous - enemies," Obama said.


Obama, the first black candidate with a real chance at the Democratic nomination, intends to present his policy regarding Israel soon, and his staff has been drafting a speech on the subject.

In his speech, Obama intends to remove any doubts that the Democratic Party's donors and constituents, many of whom are Jewish, may have about his support for Israel.
============
Whoring for Israel. He thinks Israel wants peace? What planet has he been living on anyway?

DEN said...

Sal, right on!

Obama sucks up because he knows if he does not, he won't stand a chance of getting elected.

Israels political power it wields in this country is obscene.

They have one ally in the entire world, the US, what does that say about them?

Obama should talk to the Palestinians and get the other side of Israels racist coin, discrimination(Apartheid) is alive and well there.

O'Reilly said...

Hajji, That is great news. Fantatsic!

O'Reilly said...

To:
Sen. Edward Kennedy
Sen. John Kerry
Rep. Stephen Lynch
President George Bush

February 16, 2007

If we went to Iraq secure WMDs, then the mission was FUBAR.

If we went there to depose Saddam, then it's mission accomplished. If we went there to incubate democracy, then it's mission accomplsihed.

If we went there because of 9/11 to fight al-Qaeda, then the mission was FUBAR 2 and shame upon President Bush. If we went there to secure natural resources, then the mission was FUBAR 3 and shame upon President Bush and his deliberate deception of the American people.

Bring our boys home, not precipitously but orderly and before January '09 and before another American soldier dies for a lie.

Gerald said...

Praying Each Day: February 16

Gerald said...

Weapons charges

Gerald said...

Given the staggeringly destructive consequences of war with Iran, which the Bush/Cheney cabal appears to desire, and for which it's desperate to find an ostensibly credible pretext, both the American people and members of Congress must be extremely vigilant.

Not only would an attack on Iran get us into a second sucking quagmire in the Middle East, it could precipitate potentially dire Iranian retaliation -- including economically devastating oil curtailment -- and the very real prospect of a terrible regional conflagration . . . if not World War III.

Until someone can conclusively show otherwise, we should consider accelerated demonization of Iran as nothing more than standard neocon lies.

Gerald said...

A Very Good Article But Somewhat Lengthy

Gerald said...

Indeed, the Bush administration's sudden focus on Iran's role in Iraq may simply be an effort to provoke an Iranian reaction that could then become an excuse for war. Whatever the reason, the motivation for blaming Iran must be pretty strong, given how much effort the U.S. government is putting into promoting such weak evidence.

Gerald said...

In short, the administration has thus far made a series of dubious assertions without evidence. "We know more than we can show," one senior official claimed when pressed for tangible evidence that the EFPs were made in Iran. Unless or until they can show more, however, there is no reason to believe their alarmist claims.

Gerald said...

On one hand, President Bush is quite correct in alleging that, in response to terrorist attacks against Shi'ite civilians by elements of the Sunni-led insurgency, "Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads" that have contributed to the "vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today." What he ignores, however, is that the majority of this death squad activity has come from U.S.-armed-and-trained Iraqi police and military units. According to official Central Command figures, these forces have received thousands of U.S.-made machine guns, grenade launchers and high-mobility vehicles – not to mention hundreds of thousands of AK-47 rifles – courtesy of the American taxpayer.

In other words, the United States is far more responsible for providing support for death squad activity by radical Shi'ite militiamen in Iraq than is Iran.

Gerald said...

Geopolitical Implications

Not only has the United States suffered enormous losses in lives, resources, international standing, and long-term security as a result of its invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration has delivered a strategic and diplomatic windfall to the reactionary Iranian mullahs and their supporters in both countries.

Rather than acknowledge this predictable result of that tragic decision, however, President Bush has instead put the blame on the Iranians. He has insisted they have no right to interfere in the internal affairs of their next-door neighbor that the United States invaded and, nearly four years later, continues to occupy. Furthermore, instead of recognizing that Iran is simply seeking to gain some advantage from the dramatic U.S.-instigated changes in the political and strategic situation on their western flank (as would any regional power in a comparable situation), President Bush has tried to depict Iran's role as something far more sinister: as yet another front of "the war on terrorism."

It is true that, not surprisingly, the Iranian government has pursued policies that have generally not encouraged the establishment of a democratic, pluralistic and stable Iraqi society in the wake of the 2003 U.S. invasion. However, it is extremely dangerous for the Bush administration to misrepresent and exaggerate Iranian actions and to engage in hyperbole and threats. Although elements of the Iranian regime may have contributed to the suffering of the Iraqi people, it pales in comparison to the damage inflicted upon that country by the United States.

Gerald said...

Geopolitical Implications

Not only has the United States suffered enormous losses in lives, resources, international standing, and long-term security as a result of its invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration has delivered a strategic and diplomatic windfall to the reactionary Iranian mullahs and their supporters in both countries.

Rather than acknowledge this predictable result of that tragic decision, however, President Bush has instead put the blame on the Iranians. He has insisted they have no right to interfere in the internal affairs of their next-door neighbor that the United States invaded and, nearly four years later, continues to occupy. Furthermore, instead of recognizing that Iran is simply seeking to gain some advantage from the dramatic U.S.-instigated changes in the political and strategic situation on their western flank (as would any regional power in a comparable situation), President Bush has tried to depict Iran's role as something far more sinister: as yet another front of "the war on terrorism."

It is true that, not surprisingly, the Iranian government has pursued policies that have generally not encouraged the establishment of a democratic, pluralistic and stable Iraqi society in the wake of the 2003 U.S. invasion. However, it is extremely dangerous for the Bush administration to misrepresent and exaggerate Iranian actions and to engage in hyperbole and threats. Although elements of the Iranian regime may have contributed to the suffering of the Iraqi people, it pales in comparison to the damage inflicted upon that country by the United States.

Gerald said...

Although elements of the Iranian regime may have contributed to the suffering of the Iraqi people, it pales in comparison to the damage inflicted upon that country by the United States.

Read this sentence and weep!!!!!

Let me start with signature and vintage Gerald, NAZI AMERICA IS AN EVIL COUNTRY!!!

Gerald said...

There is NO OTHER COUNTRY more evil than Nazi America!!!

Gerald said...

Nazi America and evil are synonymous!!!

Gerald said...

Kool-Aid on Iran

Gerald said...

They Buy American

Gerald said...

Is Bush aware that an agency of the U.S. government is providing weapons to the Iraqi insurgents? Or is he so busy with other pressing national security matters that he forgot to read the inspector general's report?

Nazi America is an evil country whose ruler is demonic, demented, and deranged.

Gerald said...

Evil Americans

Gerald said...

Waging Mass Murders and War Crimes Again

A great article from one of my foxes!!!

Gerald said...

Far worse than our rulers will admit

capt said...

fresh thread.