Scooter's Law

If PatRoW had a legal expert, we would ask him to weigh in on a surprising defense mounted by Scooter Libby in the Valerie Plame leak case, a defense that, if successful, could change our legal system's definition of fact and fiction, lies and the truth.

If PatRoW had a legal expert, we would ask him to comment on how one man could give a statement contested by three unaffiliated witnesses, yet claim he had not committed perjury.

If PatRoW had a legal expert, we would ask him to expand on the acceptance into evidence of a paradigm-shifting theory – that is, Libby's lawyers' contention that "memory does not function like a tape recorder, with memories recorded, stored and played back verbatim."

That's right; Libby's team has proposed that the defendant may have been mistaken in his sworn statement about the nature of his role in leaking Valerie Plame's identity, but he wasn't lying:

The crux of Libby's defense will be that he was too preoccupied with national security "matters of life and death" and that he could have easily confused "snippets of conversations" he had with reporters from Time magazine, NBC and the New York Times.

To paraphrase, Libby's defense team contends that Scooter was too busy a guy to be expected to remember things as they actually happened, and too important to be held accountable to something as irrelevant as the truth.

Not only is such a defense a self-important/last-ditch effort to avoid criminal charges, but it is a despicable and enthusiastic middle finger at the American justice system. TV has taught me that witnesses must swear to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God." If successful with their horseshit premise, Libby's attorneys will have set a precedent that allows any criminal/witness to lie about his activities and not be held accountable to charges of perjury.

If PatRoW had a legal expert, we would expect him to rail about how such a precedent could destroy the court's power to elicit the truth and reach a fair and just decision. That such a precedent opens avenues for deceit; that such a precedent eliminates the motivation for anyone to testify about unpleasant or inconvenient truths (ones that revolve around a crime, not Al Gore).

Of course, PatRoW doesn't have a legal expert, so you're stuck with my opinion. Here's a hint – it rhymes with "Scooter Libby and his lawyers are all pooch bags".