No Easy Answers

Another OCR job ....

---

Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW     Document 249     Filed 01/19/2007     Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

I. LEWIS LIBBY'S PROPOSED THEORY OF DEFENSE INSTRUCTION

    At the request of the Court, I. Lewis Libby, through his counsel, submits the following proposed jury instruction describing the theory of defense. This instruction will be revised and expanded at the close of the evidence.

Proposed Instruction:

    Mr. Libby denies that he intended to or did obstruct justice, make intentionally false statements to the FBI, or make intentionally false statements to the grand jury. He contends that he told the FBI and the grand jury his honest recollections at the time, and to the extent any of those recollections were incorrect, his mistakes were innocent. He contends that he lacked any notes of the conversations about which he has been accused of lying, and that he was unable to refresh his recollection by reviewing the notes of other people and discussing with them their recollections of events. He contends that any conversations he had about Ambassador Wilson's wife during June and July 2003 were so brief, and the information he received so incidental to the issues he was dealing with, that he honestly did not recall them when he was questioned about them. He contends that the amount and importance of intelligence information he was receiving and responding to during June and July 2003, and the number of vital issues of national security he was dealing with on a daily basis, dwarfed any information about Joseph Wilson's

---

Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW     Document 249     Filed 01/19/2007     Page 2 of 2

wife's employment. Thus Mr. Libby contends that it is natural that he did not recall, or recalled incorrectly, brief conversations about the employment of Mr. Wilson's wife when the FBI's investigation began in October, and when he testified to the grand jury the following March. Mr. Libby further contends that when the investigation began, he was confident that he had not provided any information about Mr. Wilson's wife to Robert Novak, and that he had not disclosed classified information about Mr. Wilson or his wife to any other reporters. Further, Mr. Libby was well aware when he was first interviewed by the FBI and when he testified to the grand jury that the investigators could and likely would talk to the journalists he spoke with concerning Ambassador Wilson and that those journalists would truthfully recount their recollections of the conversations he had with them. Thus Mr. Libby submits he had no reason to lie to the FBI or the grand jury, and did not do so.

Dated: January 19, 2007     Respectfully submitted,

                Theodore V. Wells, Jr. William H. Jeffress, Jr.
                John D. Cline

---

And a couple of items from the docket. The Orders read pretty much as the docket sheet entries

01/19/2007     250     ORDER as to I. LEWIS LIBBY. Upon consideration of the government's motion to seal government's response to defendant's motion in limine to redact portions of defendant's grand jury testimony. That the pleading be placed under seal in the Court files; Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on 1/18/07. (erd) (Entered: 01/19/2007)

---===---

01/19/2007     251     ORDER as to I. LEWIS LIBBY; that the bench conferences conducted during the jury selection process and during the trial will be placed under seal until the completion of the trial in this matter; Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on 1/18/07. (erd) (Entered: 01/19/2007)

"Introduction of the complete grand jury transcript" is still very much up in the air. There are things in there that Libby does not want the jury to see.

---

Just for grins, here is the OCR of Doc 251 ...

WTED STATES DISTRI_T _OE_RT
 
FoRrw DIsrA__T or _oLwBm _a___ .

 
                                           ORDER
 
 
     To enswe mat the jm selection process is not ta_nted by the public di.sc_oswe of
 
.:. dvcussions bemeen the _ort and comseI that occw at the bench and to enswe mat suth
 
revelations do not vnpair me paNies' ríght to receive a fair briaI boIQ the jwors selected to seNe

on Wis case, it is on ths IBth day ofJanuary, 2007, hereay : .
 
 
     OROERED that We bench conferences conducted dwing thejury selection protess and
   
dwiRg the trial mill be ptaced under serm uotil We compIetion of_le trial in this matter_
   
 
     SO ORDERED