I have to tell you the Conservative Blogosphere is very quiet on this trial right now. I personally don’t understand how you can put a persons memory on trial, but that is just me.
Outside The Beltway opines:
The testimony of Cathie Martin has be...

The latter. It was strained reporting by MSNBC's David Schuster that even his NBC colleagues in the room immediately walked away from.

Fitzgerald used some confusing language in his opening that could have been read that way but only Schuster seems to have done so. Given how repetitive lawyers are, it's incredible that he would mention something so crucial only in passing. And not charge him with it.

apparently the prosecutors think they have evidence that Libby destroyed documents that might go to motive

Is there anyone credible who's claiming that Libby destroyed evidence? Did I miss something, or is this the trope that would not die?

I don’t like Fitz very much”

Posted by clarice at January 25, 2007 21:58 Permalink

Clarice - you seem to have it hard for Fitzie. Got a crush? Unrequited love ... so hard.

So, Fleischer babbles and Armitage goes to the extreme of picking out Novak to pimp the State version, throws himself on the forgiving Fitz's mercy...

and Libby gets indicted.

I don't like Fitz very much"

This is a trial about perjury and obstruction of justice. The jury is going to be asked if they believe that Irving Libby actually forgot that "Joe Wilson had a wife", and that when Tim Russert (supposedly) told him about Valerie's involvement, it was "as if for the first time."

Cathie Martin's testimony is devastating for one simple reason -- the DAY before Irving Libby's boss (Dick Cheney) told Irving that Valerie Wilson worked for the Counterproliferation Division of the CIA's Covert Operations Section, Cathie told both of them that Valerie worked for the CIA. (and Martin's own notes describe Valerie as a CIA agent)

In other words, Cheney's disclosure to Libby -- the disclosure that Libby supposedly "forgot" before supposedly hearing about Valerie from Russert -- was not an isolated fact, but the result of Dick Cheney following up on what Cathie Martin had told him the day before.

The fact that "Joe Wilson's wife" was involved in his trip to Niger was something that Dick Cheney cared about -- and no one is going to believe that Irving Libby completely forgot about something like this when it was important to his boss.....

Motive can be inferred, and apparently the prosecutors think they have evidence that Libby destroyed documents that might go to motive.

People get sentenced to death on such inferences.

I read James Joyner's update on Martin. He seems to think the Defense is focusing on Martin's inexperience in a substantial press role. I see it differently.

First, they establish that Libby called Cooper at her behest, and that they did not discuss Wilson. This helps eliminate motive.

Additionally, she states that throughout the relevant time, there was only one, rather offhand comment about Wilson's wife. Nothing that would necessarily stikc in Libby's mind, undercutting Fitz's theory that this was a major point of focus that Libby was unlikely to forget.

Next, Wells uses her to defend the big case, i.e. the administration (let's be real, this is prosecution by proxy for the war, and that is why the left still loves it even after Rove escaped prosecution) did not lie in the run up to the war.

I just don't think she damaged Libby as much as James thinks. More proof of that is the FDL comments which focus on sophmoric jokes about Ari Fleisher in the bathroom rather than any bombshells from her testimony.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is a high standard. I think Fitz has to push a lot harder and get more unequivocal testimony from his witnesses. I suppose having several witnesses say they told Libby about Wilson's wife gives him some reason to bring the case, but in a charged atmosphere, you would think he would probe his favorable witnesses a little harder than Nifong did.

Worse for Fitzgerald’s case, she can’t even remember Libby or Cheney agreeing with her about it.

Even worse, they have written versions of the media strategy, and "Plame" isn't on them. They discussed responses with CIA (Grenier), and agreed to "the CIA sent her" (very publicly disseminated by George Tenet on July 11th). And there's no indication they did actually leak. Nice speculation, but the evidence suggests it didn't happen that way.

'How hard is that?'

Very hard for any of the four witnesses. Only Cathie Martin even raised the issue, and she said she thought it was 'useful', not 'important'.

Worse for Fitzgerald's case, she can't even remember Libby or Cheney agreeing with her about it. Trials are about evidence, and Fitzgerald has been singularly unimpressive in producing any to this point.

Even Fitz's big coup (he thought) that Martin hadn't heard Libby say, 'We're hearing that from reporters.', disappeared during cross examination. Martin didn't hear all the conversation. She took a cell phone call during Libby and Cooper's conversation and missed part of it.

If this was a prizefight the referee would stop it.

Valerie Wilson was "important" insofar as she (& her alleged role in sending Joe Wilson to Niger) could be used to discredit Wilson & perhaps the CIA as well.

How hard is that?

How can anyone ignore Kevin Martin's agenda to turn out the lights at the FCC. His own background was as legal counsel to impeach Clinton, and then at the vote-counting debacle in Florida.

What could have been seen as a simple appointment as a political hack, takes on a sinister light when you consider the election of a President through saturation propaganda.

How do we start the process of impeaching Kevin Martin.

Agreed. Thus Libby had no reason to lie about her. Too bad Fitzgerald doesn't seem to realize that.

As to the cross examination, it's showing just what the cross of Grossman and Grenier did; Libby didn't care about 'the wife'. Thus, he has no motive to lie, and any misstatements about her are innocent mistakes of memory.