Libby Defense: Smart as Hell But a Lousy Memory

Libby’s counsel told the jury that his client was Libby was “known around the office” as having a bad memory–“smart as hell but a lousy memory.” As a result, “he lived by his notes” which were copious. That’s the only way that Libby could juggle all of his enormous responsibilities.

That set up this bullet point on the PowerPoint shown the jury: “In hundreds of pages of Libby’s notes, there is one line about Wilson’s wife.”

FILED UNDER: General,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. madmatt says:

    how many other notes mention breaking the law?

  2. James Joyner says:

    Notes mentioning her at all. This is part of the idea that, until hell broke loose with the Novak story, the existence of “the wife” and her status was very low on Libby’s radar screen.

  3. paul lukasiak says:

    Libby’s counsel told the jury that his client was Libby was “known around the office” as having a bad memory—”smart as hell but a lousy memory.”

    wow…. Wells can’t be accused of not having an enormous amount of chutpah! — and one suspects that Wells is going to regret saying that, since Libby is known for his excelllent memory…

  4. Ugh says:

    Not only a poor memory, but so poor he (allegedly) made up a completely different story than what (allegedly) happened. It’s like “unless I write down how I got to work this morning, I won’t remember and when asked will say I rode in on a unicorn.”

    Ok, that’s not fair, but come on.

  5. just me says:

    Honestly,I can see where details of conversations from months ago would be hard to recall.

    If somebody asked me for details regarding a conversation I had with people at work about something last October, I would be hard pressed to remember the details-I might be able to give a general topic of conversation, but probably not details of exactly what was said.

  6. paul lukasiak says:

    Honestly,I can see where details of conversations from months ago would be hard to recall.

    I would agree….the problem isn’t that Libby forgot certain details, its that he said that when he was told by Russert about Wilson’s wife, it was “as if it was for the first time.”

    Libby’s story is that he was merely repeating a rumor he’d been told ONLY by a “reporters” to “other reporters”…..

    But there are far too many OTHER people with whom Libby discussed Plame for that statement to be true.

    Its that “as if it were for the first time” that is the at the heart of the trial — he could make a “mistake” about which reporter he’d had specific discussions with…. but there is way too much evidence that Libby knew about/discussed Plame from/with official White House/OVP/DoD/CIA/State Department personnel….

  7. Ugh says:

    If somebody asked me for details regarding a conversation I had with people at work about something last October, I would be hard pressed to remember the details-I might be able to give a general topic of conversation, but probably not details of exactly what was said.

    Right, but would you confidently assert details despite the fact that you were hard pressed to remember them?