During Fitzgerald's investigation, Lewis Libby submitted to approximately ten hours of Government questioning, nearly nine of which were by a very skilled prosecutor without the protection of defense counsel under oath in front of a Grand Jury.
From that testimony, three snippets of less than three minutes total are now the subject of intense scrutiny.
Three witnesses testified that their versions of the events described by Libby in those snippets are somewhat different than Libby's version.
To me, the evidence is clear about this:
The memories of the three witnesses main prosecution witnesses, two of whom were highly respected journalists, one of whom was less experienced, were selective at best.
It just so happened that what they selectively remembered differed somewhat from what Libby testified to respecting the events described in the snippets.
As Church Lady used to say, "How Conveeeeeeeeenient" for the Prosecution.
My take is that the government's evidence is somewhat thin to go to the jury.
But it is probably not an abuse of discretion for Judge Walton to overrule a Rule 29 motion, and let it go forward. He could go either way, IMO.
I have, however, not done any research on the issue, and have not read the cases cited in the parties' briefs. So I don't have any idea how I would rule on such a motion.
Nationalism without a nationalist
1 hour ago