18/02: In the matter of I. Lewis Scooter Libby: Representing the Accused...
Category: Courts
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Week before last, I observed:
If Scooter Libby is not guilty as sin, the MSM has done us a great disservice...I wonder if there is another side of the story.
Today in the Washington Post, Victoria Toensing rises for the defense (doing what she does best, prosecuting):
"There's a reason why responsible prosecutors don't bring perjury cases on mere "he said, he said" evidence. Without an underlying crime or tangible evidence of obstruction (think Martha Stewart trying to destroy phone logs), the trial becomes a mishmash of faulty memories in which witnesses can seem as guilty as the defendant. Any prosecutor knows that memories differ, even vividly, and each party can be convinced that his or her version is the truthful one.
"If we accept Fitzgerald's low threshold for bringing a criminal case, then why stop at Libby? This investigation has enough questionable motives and shadowy half-truths and flawed recollections to fill a court docket for months. So here are my own personal bills of indictment:"
Read the full (2200 words) article here.
UPDATE: It occurs to me that if you did not remember my previous post, you may have missed the point of this post. Please feel free to post in the comments your favorite defense of Libby article and/or your own thoughts.
If Scooter Libby is not guilty as sin, the MSM has done us a great disservice...I wonder if there is another side of the story.
Today in the Washington Post, Victoria Toensing rises for the defense (doing what she does best, prosecuting):
"There's a reason why responsible prosecutors don't bring perjury cases on mere "he said, he said" evidence. Without an underlying crime or tangible evidence of obstruction (think Martha Stewart trying to destroy phone logs), the trial becomes a mishmash of faulty memories in which witnesses can seem as guilty as the defendant. Any prosecutor knows that memories differ, even vividly, and each party can be convinced that his or her version is the truthful one.
"If we accept Fitzgerald's low threshold for bringing a criminal case, then why stop at Libby? This investigation has enough questionable motives and shadowy half-truths and flawed recollections to fill a court docket for months. So here are my own personal bills of indictment:"
Read the full (2200 words) article here.
UPDATE: It occurs to me that if you did not remember my previous post, you may have missed the point of this post. Please feel free to post in the comments your favorite defense of Libby article and/or your own thoughts.
Tocqueville wrote:
By Byron York
Today both prosecution and defense are scheduled to make closing arguments in the perjury and obstruction trial of Lewis Libby. During the trial, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and chief defender Ted Wells each presented nine witnesses. The jury saw dozens of documents and also heard all eight hours of Libby’s testimony before Fitzgerald’s grand jury.
That’s the case; there won’t be any more evidence or testimony. So now, with the trial over except for closing arguments and the jury’s deliberations, we have an opportunity to evaluate Fitzgerald’s charges in light of the evidence presented in court.
The indictment of Libby, announced on October 28, 2005, is made up of five counts. Two of the counts, one each of perjury and making false statements, are based on a single conversation Libby had with Matthew Cooper, then of Time magazine, on July 12, 2003. Two other counts, one of perjury and one of making false statements, are based on a single conversation Libby had with NBC’s Tim Russert on July 10 or 11, 2003. The remaining count, obstruction of justice, is based on Libby’s testimony about both conversations. (Originally, the obstruction count was also based, in part, on a conversation Libby had with Judith Miller, then of the New York Times, but midway through the trial prosecutors conceded that they had presented no evidence to support that element of the case and agreed with the defense’s request that it be stricken from the charges against Libby.)
Each count of perjury and false statements carries a maximum prison sentence of five years. The obstruction of justice count carries a maximum sentence of ten years, meaning that if Libby were to be convicted of all counts, he could face a total of 30 years in prison. So here are the counts, and the evidence presented to support them.
http://article.nationalrevi...