Opening Arguments in Libby Trial

Despite how the media is attempting to frame this trial as a political trial against Libby and the Bush Administration, the criminal charges and what the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt in and of themselves are anything but political.

Mr. Libby, widely known by his nickname Scooter, is charged with lying to a grand jury and to Federal Bureau of Investigation agents who were trying to find out who leaked to journalists the identity of a C.I.A. operative and why. Neither Mr. Libby nor anyone else was charged with disclosing the name of the operative, Valerie Wilson.

Instead, he is charged with lying about the fact that he discussed Ms. Wilson with journalists and thus impeded the investigation.

In addition to the 12 jurors, Judge Reggie M. Walton seated four alternates to replace any of the 12 who may fall ill or have other problems.

Did Libby commit perjury or obstruct justice? That's what Fitzgerald must prove. That's what this group of jurors must consider.

Considering that Fitzgerald spent more than two years trying to find the leaker of Valerie Plame's identity (and apparently knew early on that there was not only no leak, but that Richard Armitage was the one who leaked the name to the press), this is the only charge stemming from the entire investigation and it has nothing to do with the original investigation but rather stems from Libby not being able to recollect all the information all the times he met with the investigators such that Fitzgerald believes there was sufficient evidence to bring charges of obstruction of justice and perjury. No charges were brought against anyone in connection with the original focus of the investigation because no crime was committed. Plame was not a covert agent and her identity was apparently well known among many - from Armitage on down to the Who's Who publication.

The voir dire of the jurors took longer than expected because of the political dimensions and who might be called to testify. Everyone from Vice President Cheney to media figures like Bob Woodward are expected to testify. Can you say media circus? I knew you could.

With all that, Fitzgerald has an uphill battle to prove the elements of the crime. The defense has nothing to prove here - it is simply required to rebut or shoot down prosecution theories and the elements of the charges.

UPDATE:
Along the lines of my statement above, one cannot take defense opening statements to imply anything other than an attempt to debunk Fitzgerald's theory of the case. Also, keep in mind that this isn't about the leak, but a perjury and obstruction case pitting Libby's testimony against witnesses who happen to be media types (Tim Russert and Andrea Mitchel). Macranger has more thoughts.

According to MSNBC, prosecutors revealed that Vice President Cheney was much more deeply involved in the leak of CIA agent Valerie Wilson's identity than previously known. This may be part of laying the groundwork of undermining Cheney's forthcoming expected testimony. Problem is that if there was anything to this claim, Cheney or others in his office would have been brought up on the charges Fitzgerald had been considering. Right now, Fitzgerald is grasping at straws hoping to salvage more than two years worth of investigations into whether Plame's name was leaked with a perjury and obstruction case against Libby.

UPDATE:
It might be worth considering the following video to remind folks of what name dropping can do in a trial. This includes name dropping Cheney, Rove, and anyone else either prosecutor or defendant throws in there. Without further ado, the Chewbacca defense: