Libby testimony to grand jury hurts Fitzgeralds case too

Byron York:

...

... The question was whether the jury needed another chance to hear Libby talk about his role in the CIA-leak affair. And the answer was: Eight hours is enough.

Eight hours refers, of course, to the length of Libby’s earlier testimony to the grand jury. The trial jury heard a recording of it all — a laborious process that took place over three days. So by the time Libby had to decide whether to testify, the jury had already heard a lot of Lewis Libby testifying.

But — and this is a point largely unexamined by trial observers — jurors also heard a lot of Patrick Fitzgerald questioning Lewis Libby. And Libby’s defenders are betting that jurors took from those recordings an impression not only of the defendant but of the prosecutor. And the impression that Libby’s supporters hope jurors will have is that of a prosecutor trying too hard to find a crime where there was none.

Consider the exchange between Fitzgerald and Libby that took place before the grand jury on March 5, 2004. Fitzgerald was trying to find out who told Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus about Valerie Plame Wilson. He seemed to think that Libby was the man.

,,,

The lengthy exchange is in York's piece. To each question Libby makes it clear that he has no recollection of talking to Pincus about Plame. As it turns out Pincus testified that he did not hear about Plame from Libby. There are also the questions that were not asked about the leak the leak that started the case. Is this enough to create reasonable doubt? Possible when you through in all the prosecution witnesses who also had trouble recalling events.