Jeralyn's Thoughts On Zeidenberg's Closing

“Thoughts: A very powerful argument with good use of graphics. One had Libby in a circle with arrows pointing to the nine conversations he had about Wilson's wife. It flashed several times during the presentation. There were also PowerPoint clips of succinct points. It was logical and crisp for the most part. The last ten minutes were a little meandering. It took an hour and 50 minutes. Fitzgerald will get an hour and 25 minutes or so.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeralyn-merritt/libby-closing-arguments-_b_41653.html

It was very well done. It has Teddy reacting -- rather than responding -- and that is exactly what we want.

Things are good.

He's practically foaming. Fitz will take care of him in rebut

Mr. Wells made a mistake in this. Surely he mus have anticipated that the prosecution's closing would note that the defense promised to show that poor Scooter was being tossed under a bus. Wells has reacted to that, and I think in a way that will give Mr. Fitzgerald the opportunity to slam one point home with the jury: if Scooter thought he was being sacrificed, why didn't he say anything -- anything -- about that when he spoke to investigators or the grand jury?

I am underwhelmed. I know it must be hard when you have a client who is guilty as hell and won't make the deal, but Wells has been sneaky, caustic when there was no point and underhanded to the point of alienating the judge. Lovely that FitzG. has the last word.

on one of the MSNBC shows, who noted that everyone is entitled to a defense that does their best for their client. In this context, I think Wells & Co have done that. The lies that Libby told in the pre-Fitzgerald stage of the investigation created a very snug trap for Scooter. He had but two choices: tell the truth, or stick with a lie that no reasonable person could possibly believe.

H2O, do you think that Fitz will try to flip Libby to testify against Cheney after this conviction, given Schuster's latest report? Could that even work, given that by then, Scooter will be a Convicted Perjurer, thus permanently tainting any under-oath testimony he may give?

Or do they not need Scooter's testimony to go after Cheney? Meaning, what has come out in this trial is plenty enough to indict.

Thanks again for your insight! :hi:

is not necessary for Mr. Fitzgerald to go after Cheney next -- and, indeed, if it happened, Cheney's attorneys would surely say, "He is merely trying to save his own skin" -- it would be helpful.

Regarding Cheney, it is important to keep in mind that Mr. Fitzgerald has more evidence not brought forth in this trial, that helps to tie VP Cheney to two things: first, the giving Libby the "green light" to leak to reporters; and second, a possible obstruction charge based upon his yet undefined role in the cover-up meeting(s) with Scooter. That other evidence includes, but is not limited to, documents from the OVP that have Cheney's notes on them, as well as the testimony of other administration officials. And that includes when the VP spoke to Mr. Fitzgerald.

Intriguing. Question: Even though GJ testimony is, for the most part, supposed to remain secret, if the Congress requested it, would they be given full and complete access?

The branches of the federal government are separate. They could, of course, require the same folks to testify to a congressional investigation.

"You know, mis-remembered and shit.
Just wait till I get my gilt-edged pardon
from the Traitor-in-Chief.

"You convict me you little America-loving, liberty-defending punks,
and I will sic Commander AWOL on you,
and he will Smite You for your anti-Traitorimism."

- The Scootmeister