Wordsmithing the Libby theory of defense, with the benefit of the trial itself intervening between. The Theory of Defense was first propounded on January 19 [Doc 249] and is now, February 15, submitted the the Court in revised form [Doc 289].
Merged (by hand) to show changes. Clearly an improvement over the original, but doesn't materially alter Libby's personal theory of defense.
Interesting to me (not the defense, but to the prosecution) that so little evidence was entered that illustrated the political firestorm developing from August through all of September, culminating in the start of an official investigation. The "leak" had taken on a greater dimension by then. The political environment at the time Libby was questioned by the FBI was radically different from the political environment in June and July. The leak of Plame was a HOT issue. There is little discussion of this evolution by any of the pundits. In the debate over motive, Libby defenders are mired in the "no legal jeopardy for leaking, therefore no reason to lie" paradigm, and the Libby opponents are mired in the "lied to cover for Cheney" paradigm.
Another little-probed fact is the timing of Libby delivering his "generic reporter waiver." He did not deliver it in November, when asked to by the FBI. He waited about 6 weeks, until shortly after the Special Counsel was appointed. I think Libby was playing a waiting game, with the hope that the firestorm over the leak of Plame would blow over. If only the FBI was involved, and he never delivered a waiver, who would know? But having been personally accused in the media, and faced with a Special Counsel, the absence of a waiver could be taken as a sign of guilt.
Sorry for the diversion - stream of consciousness, I think. Back to Libby's revised theory of defense.
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 289-1 Filed 02/15/2007 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) Cr. No. 05-394 (RBW) ) I. LEWIS LIBBY, ) also known as "Scooter Libby," ) Defendant. ) I. LEWIS LIBBY'S REVISED PROPOSED THEORY OF THE DEFENSE INSTRUCTION Mr. Libby contends that the government has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to or did obstruct justice, make intentionally false statements to the FBI, or make intentionally false statements to the grand jury. Mr. Libby 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 was questioned, 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 further contends that the amount and scope of vital national security issues and information confronting him on a daily basis during June and July 2003 may have affected his memory of any brief conversations about the employment of Mr. Wilson's wife when he talked to FBI investigators in October and November 2003, three or more months after the conversation are alleged to have happened, and when he testified to the grand jury the following March. Mr. Libby further contends that when the investigation began, he knew that he had not provided any information about Ms. Wilson to Robert Novak. He also contends that he did not know that Ms. Wilson's employment status was covert or classified and that he did not knowingly disclose classified DC01:466568.1
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 289-1 Filed 02/15/2007 Page 2 of 2 information about Ms. Wilson to any 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 government officials and the journalists he spoke with concerning Ambassador Wilson and that those officials and journalists would truthfully recount their recollections of the conversations he had with them. Mr. Libby submits he had no reason to lie to the FBI or the grand jury, and did not do so. Dated: February 15, 2007 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Theodore V. Wells, Jr. /s/ William H. Jeffress, Jr. Theodore V. Wells, Jr. William H. Jeffress, Jr. (D.C. Bar No. 468934) (D.C. Bar No. 041152) James L. Brochin Alex J. Bourelly (D.C. Bar No. 455456) (D.C. Bar No. 441422) Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton Baker Botts LLP & Garrison LLP 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 1285 Avenue of the Americas Washington, DC 20004 New York, NY 10019-6064 Tel: (202) 639-7551 Tel: (212) 373-3089 /s/ John D. Cline John D. Cline (D.C. Bar No. 403824) Jones Day 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: (415) 626-3939 DC01:466568.1
March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 March 2009 April 2009