What a welcome surprise. The Dallas Morning News has not only been reading the blog coverage of the Scooter Libby trial, it has been doing a few wrap-ups with quotes from many of the bloggers.

• February 17

• February 3

As discussed here, Team Libby filed a new theory of defense instruction Thursday it wants the jury to consider.

In Fitz' final verdict brief, he objects to this portion:

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.

In preparation for Tuesday's closing arguments, it may be helpful to distill the charges and alleged lies of Scooter Libby, from the Government's point of view, since it has the burden of proof. In subsequent posts, I'll look at the defense arguments and the points of contention that still exist over jury instructions.

Note, this series of posts is not sexy. They are dry and may not be of interest to anyone not closely following the legal aspects of the case.

There are five counts against Libby. The first is obstruction of justice. Counts two and three are false statements to federal investigators in the fall of 2003; Counts four and five allege perjury before the grand jury in March, 2004.

Yesterday, the Government filed this brief outlining its position on the verdict forms the jury should receive as to counts 1, 2 and 5.

According to the Government, to convict Libby of obstruction of justice, it must unanimously conclude at least one of these statements which Libby made to the grand jury is false:

Marcy Wheeler, live-blogging for Firedoglake today, reports on the tedious legal arguments over jury instructions. She says in tonight's video, Libby attorney Ted Wells told the Judge he wants four hours for his closing argument.

If you don't have four hours to sit through it, keep your mouse poised at Firedoglake and Huffington Post (I'll be back in D.C. live-blogging at HuffPo.)

If you want the shorthand version of Wells' defense, here is the revised "theory of defense" instruction Team Libby today requested be read to the jury:

I'm flying back to Denver today and will be back to regular blogging Thursday night to Sunday, when I return to the Libby trial for closing arguments. If anyone would like to donate, here's how.

If you'd rather donate anonymously, please use Amazon here.

As always, thanks in advance. Your generosity is really appreciated. As an added incentive, the top three donors will get a free TalkLeft 4th Amendment Subway Tote.

Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake, Marcy Wheeler of The Next Hurrah who has been live-blogging this week at Firedoglake and I discuss the day in court and whether Fitz proved his case or Wells succeeded with his defense strategy.

I had a great week covering the trial for Huffington Post and I'll be flying home to Denver and my day job in the morning. I'll fly back to DC Monday to live blog closing arguments on Tuesday.

This has been one of the best blogging experiences yet. Why? Because bloggers bond. As you can probably tell from the week of Politics TV videos, Jane Hamsher, Marcy Wheeler and I got along famously. We don't compete, we complement and support each other and we share our knowledge. It's all about adding another dimension to the reporting.

Firedoglake has made an amazing contribution to the Libby trial reporting, as the New York Times documents today.

[Cross Posted at Huffington Post]

The Libby trial is going out with a whimper. PlameGate followers, like Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake, feel cheated. Without testimony from Vice President Cheney or Scooter Libby, there's no bang for the buck.

"When Ted Wells came back from lunch today and announced that he had released Dick Cheney as a witness I was damn near brokenhearted. After all that, and Shooter lets me down. Did he not want to testify on Libby's behalf, did Team Libby decide he could do more harm than good, or did they never intend to call him at all? We'll probably never know."

For those who believe criminal trials should be a search for the truth, I sympathize. But that's not the purpose of a criminal trial. A criminal trial is simply a testing of the evidence. The only issue is whether the prosecution can prove its charges (pdf) beyond a reasonable doubt.

Scooter Libby is not required to prove he didn't lie or obstruct justice. All he has to do is raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the jurors that he did.

The test for reasonable doubt is not a simple weighing of the evidence, after which the jury decides which side to believe more. That's the test in a civil case where the standard of proof is a mere "preponderance of the evidence."

In layman's terms, in a criminal case, if both sides' theories and arguments sound plausible, that alone is a reasonable doubt and the jury should acquit.

Wow. Ted Wells just announced neither Libby nor Cheney will testify. Evidence ends tomorrow, closings next Tuesday. More at Huffington Post.

I'm over at Huffington Post live-blogging the Libby trial today. Come on over. For the blow by blow, check out Marcy Wheeler at Firedoglake.

This morning has been taken up with determining Andrea Mitchell won't testify, the NY Times' Jill Abramson had no recollection of Judy Miller suggesting she assign someone to cover the Joseph Wilson/Niger story and Cheney NSA Advisor John Hannah testifying how busy Libby was with heavy national security issues.

Arianna wrote a few days ago that there are two trials going on in the Prettyman courthouse in D.C. One is designed to determine whether Scooter Libby is guilty of making false statements to federal investigators, lying to the grand jury and obstructing justice. The other is a referendum on the symbiotic relationship between prominent journalists and high ranking Administration officials.

The currency in Washington has always been information. That's nothing new. But the Libby trial has laid bare, for anyone caring enough to take a look, how the Administration used the press to present its unfounded case for war.

The directive to combat Joseph Wilson's July 6 op-ed came from Cheney himself. To get a sense of how Libby and others snapped to attention when he cried "fetch," consider the July 12th flight to Norfolk. It was on this flight, carrying Cheney, Libby and Cheney press aide Cathie Martin to the commemoration of the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan, that Cheney gave his directive as if he were Tony Soprano: Go after this guy Wilson. So seriously did Libby and Martin take the command that they started roto-dialing reporters from Andrews Air Force Base the moment the plane returned from Norfolk.

I'm over at Huffington Post today, live-blogging the Scooter Libby trial. Come on over!

For a blow by blow of the testimony and arguments, also check out Marcy at Firedoglake.

The pleadings flew hot and heavy this weekend over whether Andrea Mitchell will testify at the Scooter Libby trial. Fitzgerald's latest is here and Libby's is here.

Fitzgerald is trying to block Mitchell's testimony. He doesn't want Libby to question her about this statement that she made on Capitol Report on October 3, 2003.

MURRAY: And the second question is: Do we have any idea how widely known it was in Washington that Joe Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA?

MITCHELL: It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that. But frankly I wasn’t aware of her actual role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it.

Andrea Mitchell has since disavowed the statement, saying she was confused, or it was taken out of context, or she was just wrong. Here's one of her explanations: