Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (55586)	3/7/2007 1:32:01 PM
From: mph	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

I've talked to many jurors after trials have concluded. It's a real eye opener. The defense team evidently didn't think through their strategy enough. They unwittingly conceded that Libby had a motive for obstructing or that he was a fall guy for someone who DID have the motive. Either way, it played into the prosecutor's hands. He himself kept talking about Cheney. Of course, the real harm to Libby's defenses occurred when he was questioned by FBI and grand jury. He should have let the chips fall and just said whatever he knew as plainly as possible. (That's the same thing I said about Clinton and Monica. He should just have admitted the affair and let the chips fall. It was consensual, so so what? That would have been my advice to him as counsel.) What was the timing of Armitage's admission in relation to the questioning of Libby? If Armitage had already come clean by then, Libby really had bad legal advice, imo. Today, lying is the worst crime. That's how you get a Libby or Martha Stewart style prosecution. People are better off just admitting the truth and wearing it like a chip on the shoulder daring others to knock it off, particularly when it comes to these ridiculous investigations.