All I can say is "wow" to both the prosecution team and defense team in their closing arguments. I will start in order of schedule in closing arguments:
I. Prosecution team: Peter Zeidenberg
Zeidenberg gave an hour and 45 minutes closing arguments. Zeidenberg focuses on the timeline , attack the creditabilty of Libby of memory loss and the empty promises by the defense in their opening arguments. Zeidenberg said ,"It's simply not credible to believe he would forget this information about Wilson's wife,"It's ludicrous.'' Zeidenberg makes this point since Libby was eagerly trying to discredit Joe Wilson for Wilson's accusation of the Bush Administration of lying about the pre-war intelligence on Iraq. On a telephone screen, Zeidenberg had displayed a flow chart showing the faces of several Administration officials who testified to telling Libby about Plame such as Russert, Cooper, Miller, Pincus, Martin, Grenier, Schmall, and so on. From Libby, Zeidenberg drew arrows to people who said Libby talked to them about Plame. This is a timeline to the jurors of all the connected people who talked to Libby.
Zeidenberg: Is it conceivable that all these witnesses would make the same mistake, the same error in their memory?
As Zeidenberg said, "He [Libby] had to come up with a story that was innocuous,'' Zeidenberg reacts the story: Libby came up with a story about learning Plame's name from Russert rather than Cheney. Basically, to cover his butt. Russert said that conversation never happened. According to Zeidenberg, Libby had to forget nine conversations about Plame and invent two others. Then, Zeidenberg seized this moment. Zeidenberg reminded the jurors about the defense's empty promise to the jurors that Libby was an scapegoat for Rove.
Zeidenberg: Did you hear any evidence about a conspiracy, a White House conspiracy to scapegoat Mr. Libby? If you think back and draw blank, I suggest to you ladies and gentlemen, it's not a problem with your memory. It's because there was no such evidence.
Zeidenberg ends with this: "That's not a matter of misremembering or forgetting. It's lying."
Again, reminding the jurors that the case is about perjury.
II. Defense Team: Theodore Wells
Wells portrayed the case as one of competing recollections and raised reasonable doubts from the prosecution case. Wells uses the word "leak" to indicate the Libby didn't "leak" information to anyone. Wells says that Russert said the conversation about Plame never occurred. Wells said it did happen. He noted several inconsistencies in Russert's statements and told jurors that both Libby and Russert may simply have different recollections about the same conversation.
Wells: You cannot convict Mr. Libby solely on the word of this man [Russert]. It would just be fundamentally unfair.
Wells: Maybe he [Libby] talked to Rove first and Russert second. What you'll see is mass confusion because there are no phone records. When you have this kind of confussion, benefit of doubt must be given to Libby.
And this part of Wells' statement was interesting:
Wells: They [Government] put 7-8 witnessing on the stand that say we had conversations in June or July. No one [government witness] said anything about whether Libby had a recollection or what Libby lying. Those witnesses can't help you in a material way. They haven't you witnesses. We misrecollect things, it happens to everyone.
Very clever statement by Wells. Wells had to use this strategy since Fitzgerald pretty much put the nail in the coffin in the defense witnesses. He began discredit the government witnesses especially Judy Miller in misrecollecting events. Wells tried to attack Fleischer's testimony for getting immunity from the government, and questions the date of the order of Fleischer which was February 14, 2004. Fleischer testified one week before Libby scheduled to testify as stated by Wells. Wells discusses his witness, Hannah, who talked about Libby's schedule, workload on National Security matters, and having two jobs.
Wells attempted to quash the grand jury audio testimony evidence with this. He potryed Fitzgerald as a relentless prosecutor that hammered Libby on the grand jury testimony to break Libby. Also, Wells said that granjury start beating on him for information:
Wells: Spending 8 hours in the grand jury is not like sitting there. You remember it took portions of three days to get through these tapes. At the end, you can barely hear Libby. Again, raising reasonable doubt.
Wells questions government when government said that Libby would lose his job:
Wells: Have you heard evidence that anyone lost their job? Rove? Armitage?
Finally, Wells go to say how Libby was so compelled with work. Libby had a job to do: things of enormous importance to this country and Libby. Valerie Wilson wasn't an importance to Libby according to Wells.
But this statement by Wells left me with questions:
Wells: Mr. Libby's memory system. One of you jurors asked a great question-how did Libby do his job? Answer is Libby had a system. What Libby told the grand jury is to cope. He pooled collective recollections together. Backbenchers, always take one person whose job is repository of information. That person to take notes.
Wells alludes that there is an inherent conflict between Libby's memory system and a criminal investigation. Libby should not be penalized for having a different memory from the investigators.
This will confuse the hell out of the jurors. If I might add, Wells never presented enough witnesses [besides Hannah] to prove this theory.
Wells points out that Libby got wrong in the grand jury:
1. He said he told Cooper.
2. He said he told Kessler.
3, He didn't know Wilson's name until Wilson's op-ed.
4. Libby had no recollection of talking to Novak during the week of July 6.
Wells ends emotionally with this statement that was bit weak and not what the case is about:
"Don't sacrifice Libby for how you fell about the 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 and kids. He's been under my protection for the last month. Just give him back. Give him back to me. Give him back."
III. The prosecution team: Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald
Fitzgerald basically stating that Libby felt guilty about discussing Plame with reporters and was trying to cover his tracks. He backs up the evidence on the timeline from his witnesses , the grand jury audio testimony of Libby, and tape of former White House Scott McClellan's press gaggle. Fitzgerald states that the Karl Rove theory allows defense attorneys to say that Libby felt wronged by the White House and was acting as an innocent man trying to clear his name.
Fitzgerald: Is this the greatest coincidence in the world. The only person he said he talked to, he forgot it. It's not one on one. It's all the evidence taken together.
Fitzgerald begins to present the proof in detail of each the witnesses of discredit Wells' points in his closing arguments:
Regarding Wells claim that Fitzgerald pounded Libby in his grand jury testimony for him to break, Fitzgerald says that"saying it, saying it loudly, pounding the table, doesn't change the facts."
Fitzgerald makes this point about Russert's testimony:
"I'll tell you that Russert alonee can give you proof beyond reasonable doubt. You don't need Russert to convict on Russert charge."
Then, Fitzgerald goes on to say: " If Tim Russert were run over by a bus and went to that great newsroom in the sky, you could find plenty of evidence that Libby wasn't surprised when he heard this from Russert. The first day he briefed about Plame. He told Schmall about."
Second point that Fitzgerald points out is the Wells' statement that Valerie Wilson wasn't important:
Fitzgerald: Her name is Valerie Wilson. She had a life before Joe Wilson. But to them, she wasn't Valerie Wilson. She wasn't a person. Dhe was an argument. She was in fact to use against Wilson [Valerie's husband].
Third point from Fitzgerald is that how the witnesses: Grossman, Granier, and Martin knew Plame's name. He presented the government exhibits to back his evidence such as Schmall's notes talking about Tom Cruise, and Penelope Cruz, government exhibit 412 of Libby's notes that cites Novak's July 14, 2003 column [the column that exposed Plame's anme], and government 402 that shows Cheney's handwritten notes on Wilson's op-ed concerning Joe Wilson [Fitzgerald showed bullet points of the underlined stuff by Cheney] and the June 9 fax which Hannah said Libby was focused on Wilson.
Fourth point that Fitzgerald points out Libby's memory of the briefings and articles Libby's grand jury testimony. Fitzgerald says that in March 2004, when asked about reporter Walter Pincus' articles, Libby said that the article were from the fourth week of May last year. Libby could remember those articles..
Fifth point from Fitzgerald is Libby's focus on Wilson than National Security issues.
Fitzgerald: For his [Libby's] state of mind, when you're reading about a front company being exposed, isn't that important? They [defense] want to tell you the wife wasn't important until later. They're saying it was important enough to read on July 14. It is important when someone tells you that harm can happen and unimportant when facts prove defendant told a lie.
Sixth point from Fitzgerald is the "Two streams of reporting" document from Judy Miller's testimony.
Fitzgerald: The two streams of reporting came from sensative source, he is describing to Ms. Miller. He [Libby] talks about one trip, second trip, a third trip, linked to Wilson. Later two streams of reporting. She got it right. Defendant Libby got it right on July 8 from June 9, a month earlier.
Fitzgerald continues to make his point about Libby's focus such as his meeting with Judy Miller after the the two streams of reporting, examples of the grand jury testimony of Libby, discrepancies with some of the government witnesses' testimonies about their conversations with Libby.
Finally, Fitzgerald end his closing arguments on a high:
Fitzgerald: Don't you think the American people are entitled to answers? If as a result his [Libby] wife had a job and she worked at the CPD, she will get dragged into the newspapers. People want to know to find out was a law broken. People want to know who did it... He threw sand in the eyes of the FBI. He stole the truth of the judicial system. You return guilty. You give the truth back.
Zeidenberg's message: Libby's case is not a matter of misremembering or forgetting. It's lying.
Wells' message: We miscollect things.. It happens to everyone. It happens to everyday. Stuff happens.
Fitzgerald's message: Libby stole the truth of the judical system. Libby hoodwinked the American people. And the American people are entitled to answers.
I have read the entire closing arguments from both the prosecution and defense. Defense team has to hope at least one juror brought their beans. And Wells' ending should have written for a soap opera. Iwasn't impressed with the tears. Wells' theory of Libby as an scapegoat for Rove in his opening arguments really cost him brownie points which made many of his closing statements a bit weak. His biggest mistake that I found was when Wells said, " Don't sacrifice Scooter Libby for how you may feel about the war in Iraq or the Bush Adminostration. Fight any temptation for your views if you're a Democrat or whatever." This case is not about the Bush Adminstration, a particular political party, or Iraq war. This is about whether Scooter Libby committed perjury. He is simply misleading the jurors with that statement. On the other hand, the prosecution team gave what I called: K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid). Zeidenberg gave a compelling picture of evidence of how Libby committed perjury by reminding the jurors of the timeline. Also, Zeidenberg reminded the jurors what the prosecution delivered/promised to them as evidence to prove their case and what the defense didn't delivered/promised about Libby/Rove scapegoat theory. Fitzgerald finishes it up with a much detail account and timeline of evidence of Libby's memory and counteracted Wells' closed arguments with the use of the timeline, witness testimonies, government exhibits, and that damaging grand jury testimonies of Libby.
I know Fitzgerald like baseball. And he uses baseball analogies as he did in his closing arguments. I will use a basketball analogy since I like basketball. To sum up the prosecution's case, as the late commentator of the Los Angeles Lakers, Chick Hearns would say: "The refrigerator is closed. The butter is hard. The jello is jigging."
Good job, Team Fitz!
No comments:
Post a Comment