JustOneMinute: Reasonable Doubt

“And keep in mind - if the jury thinks it is possible that Libby’s testimony, even though mistaken, was offered in good faith, then he did not “lie”. - Tom McGuire

Let me go out on a limb (although a strong one) that Libby will be not be convicted of the charges brought against him. The reasons are many but basically they are on my “gut”, and the fact that if Fitzgerald was presenting this case as a “mock” for final in law school he would have flunked.

Lately I’ve gone over a few of the transcripts specific to the prosecution’s case and become even more amazed that a Grand Jury (ham sandwitches comparisons aside) could have brough an indictment in the first place.

All this causes me to ask, “Was an conviction what Fitzgerald was going for, or was it just going through the motions (so to speak) just to get the damn thing over with”.

As TM notes in the link above, via Jeralyn Merritt, “Reasonable Doubt” is easier to determine than guilt. At this time it appears that reasonable doubt has been established, although in all the years I spent in court rooms figuring out what a jury is thinking is truly a difficult task (OJ anyone?).

Nevertheless, as I’ve said from the beginning it appears that Fitzgerald in indicting Libby did so to “bail out” of a investigation that required (in the minds of some) someone goes down. This was possibly the result of the Schumer connection and the pressure he placed on James Comey (whom he helped get his position) to get results.

Yet Fitzgerald came off during the trial as a sort of Nifong, stumbling through seemingly making up connections that weren’t there.