But both TM and CF suffer from a deeper misunderstanding on something that marks one among several critical differences between those who work with the legal concept called conspiracy and those who indulge in its pornographic fake, conspiracy theory.

Reasonable doubt in the context of a criminal case is an expression of the necessity of applying a reasonable degree of skepticism to a case which the government brings against our fellow citizens. It does NOT and should NOT apply to each and every  incident that arises in the narrative surrounding the charge.

I've got a lot of time for how TM and CF have taken Mitchell and Russert to task for their shortcomings in playacting as being faithful to the principles of true journalism. It appears Mitchell has risen to talking head status because she's connected and inoffensive, and that Russert is not only all bark and no bite, he appears to think there is some justification for filing affidavits to defend his toothless existence.

But I draw a very bright line against miscasting legal principles to suit a talking points defence.

I anticipate the possibility that either or both these amateurs on the Fantasy Island that is JOM may rebut that whether Mitchell heard some rumour before July 11 goes to the heart of Libby's defense. It does not, and can not, because it requires at least SOME evidence to support this chain: Harlow to Mitchell to Russert to Libby. That means, to get to the point where Russert could have said what Libby told the GJ he said, it is necessary to prove (1) that Russert heard it, which he denies - along with any OPPORTUNITY to hear it, (2) that Mitchell told him, (3) that Mitchell had heard it, which she denies - the site of the point of her impeachment, and (4) that she got it from Harlow. So, Team Libby has to have the court hear from Russert and Harlow before it can get to Mitchell.

Shoudn't that be - Juries aren't supposed to pile baseless speculation upon baseless speculation in arriving at a conclusion.

This being only too well-known to the jerry-rigged law firm of Wells Jeffress Cline and the large resources of their respective firms, I am driven to conclude that the consensus of the Team Libby is that there is no basis for believing that anything they might get from calling David Gregory is going to improve Libby's ability to argue the possibility that Russert had heard from some other NBC reporter that former Ambassador Wilson was married to a CIA 'operative' who had some connection to his being sent to Niger to check out the dubious story of a somewhat contemporaneous Niger-Iraq uranium sale or negotiations to that end.

Judge Walton already has demonstrated his inclination against 'first principles' original thinking and for following plain rules and precedents. Indeed, any and all erroneous and reasonably-arguably-wrong rulings he has made during in the over-heated atmosphere of this case have been when he has been too slow to stop a lawyer from exploiting a dubious opening (All the TL lawyers who have been on their feet and on the government side Fitz at least have demonstrated that they are very quick on their feet and will keep going unless and until Judge Walton stops them - in recognition of which Judge Walton has noted that in essence that he left private practice because he was thin-skinned in response to criticism, and in essence that he feels he doesn't have control over the proceedings - "I think I should have some role here, too"), or when he's made a ruling at some point in oral argument more out of a feeling that he should rule at that point just to keep the trial going. But, I think significantly, I haven't seen any error that would present a reasonable chance on appeal for Libby where Judge Walton has had written submissions in advance of making a decision or ruling.

Quite apart from whether Team Libby has received something about what Gregory can be expected to say that doesn't exactly fill them with joy, in my experience the most effective trial lawyers are so more due to their understanding of the frailties of human nature, mostly in the areas of personal ego and communications abilities, and particularly with that certain lack of precision that generally characterizes our everyday communications and which is so difficult to discipline against. In contrast with Russert, who though a lawyer is way to courteous an interviewer to interrupt a subject from saying just about any absurdity on MTP, and Mitchell, whose 'prominence' as a reporter seems to have come more from social connections than any skill, Gregory appears to be extremely well educated, self-disciplined and focused, and at the same time tough enough to put up with the daily crap thrown at him by President Bush, Tony Snow and the right wing blogosphere. For example, recall his exchange with Snow over whether his quoting from the Iraq Study Group report evidenced 'bias'. Unlike sleek pampered Russert and innocent pampered Mitchell, Gregory is on the front lines in the line of verbal fire every day. There are certain types of witnesses even the best cross examiners cannot do anything with - and Gregory fits the profile.

She made the statement in Oct 2003; it was re-popularized in Nov 2005 by James Taranto of the WSJ, and she disavowed it twice on Imus in November after Taranto created a stir.

True devotees will recall that in July 2005 Powerline cited a version of her statement in a reader's email and drew flack for being unable to substantiate it, so for a while the existence of her statement had the status of an urban legend believed (or not) by the right and disputed by the left.

I would also say the defesne could have said a lot more about her efforts tracking the Niger/uranium story.

First, she broke the scoop (in June) that the INR ffotnote in the NAtional Intelligence Estimate had been misplaced - that certaily suggests she had Sttate sources (or State friendly sources) and was working the uranium story.

Secondly, she did not just interview Wilson on MTP on July 6 - she had his phone number and called him on July 5, at home, to set it up.

Thirdly, we have heard trial testimony (Cathie Martin) that Mitchell talked to Bill Harlow of the CIA on July 8.  Mitchell also delivered this report that day on the subject of who would be blamed for the 16 Words:

MITCHELL: Well, people at the CIA say that it's not going to be George Tenet; and, in fact, that high-level people at the CIA did not really know that it was false, never even looked at Joe Wilson's verbal report or notes from that report, didn't even know that it was he who had made this report, because he was sent over by some of the covert operatives in the CIA at a very low level, not, in fact, tasked by the vice president.

Pretty good detail about how the trip was arrranged.  AND, there is Bob Novak's "operative", six days before he used it.

Talking to State in June; working the Wilson story; Wilson's number in her rolodex... hmm.

My guess - she may have realized that the "error" in her Oct 2003 statement was that she was inviting a subpoena and exposing Russert to disgrace and her source to legal jeopardy (Especially if her source was Armitage, for whom this would have been his third leak, and the second one he forgot - do you suppose Mitchell wants to ruin both Russert and her source?).

Re:
Juries aren't supposed to pile inference upon inference in arriving at a conclusion.

I can't wait to hear Fitzgerald's close when he tries to come up with a motive for Libby without offering a mountain of inferences (OK, speculation).  Yes, legally his not obliged to offer a motive, but juries like to hear them.

and

You're not 75% confident Russell said something to Libby, you're .75 x .75 x .75 = 42% confident. You've actually decided that, more likely that not, Russell did not mention Plame to Libby.

Right, so we can't convict Russert of lying.  So what?  Libby is on trial, and 42% is way beyond my bounds of "reasonable doubt".