Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Improper closing argument pays dividends

Fitzgerald, the unethical slimeball responsible for the persecution of Scooter Libby, made a number of improper references in his closing argument asking the jury to convict on the basis of other supposed "crimes" by the adminstration. This quote by one of the jurors shows that Fitz scored:
"There was a tremendous amount of sympathy for Mr. Libby on the jury. It was said a number of times, 'What are we doing with this guy here? Where's Rove? Where are these other guys?'" Collins said. "I'm not saying we didn't think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of. It seemed like he was, as Mr. Wells put it, he was the fall guy."

Story here.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not sure I follow your logic. You deny the obstruction of justice verdict? And I can't figure why you think the jury shouldn't have considered the fall guy defense theory? Wells, more than Fitzgerald, argued that Rove (or Rove's bosses) not Libby, is obstructing justice. Take a look at Wells opening statement.

Here's Byron York on Libby's defense:

“He was concerned about being the scapegoat,” Wells said of Libby. “Mr. Libby said to the vice president, ‘People in the White House are trying to set me up, people in the White House are trying to make me a scapegoat.’“ Wells went on to explain: “People in the White House [were] trying to protect a man named Karl Rove, the president’s right-hand man…His fate was important to the Republican party if they were going to stay in office. [Rove] had to be protected…the person to be sacrificed was Scooter Libby.”


Defense raised the issue. Shouldn't the jury consider it? I don't see what part of Fitzgerald's case is unethical. You might argue that adjudicating bad WH behavior is a waste of Fitzgerald's time, time better spent going after, say, Bin Laden or administrators at Walter Reed. But that's not a judgment on Fitzgerald's conduct at the trial.

2:20 AM, March 07, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home