Mr. Hitchen's attempts to provide legal coverage of the Libby trial left me wondering why we should listen to him when it comes to judging the fairness of his trials. There does not seem to be an argument here that the fundamental procedure of the trial was wrong, but only, given the circumstances, the "little" discrepancies, which were clearly established by the prosecution over multiple days of testimony from various sources, of Libby's recollection was sufficient to allow a jury to find him guilty. The fact that he was not tried on a higher crime does not mean that the lesser crime should not go unpunished. I applaud Mr. Fitzgerald's refusal to soften the sentence because Mr. Hitchens has unilaterally decided that Libby did nothing wrong. Thankfully, he was not sitting in the jury box.

Significantly, the exclusion of "experts" on memory testimony is generally within the judge's discretion under the Daubert case, incorporated into the federal rules to keep paid experts from hypothesizing that the earth is flat and that Libby could not remember anything past the last talking point memo that crossed his desk that morning. I suggest, again, that Hitchens not quit his day job excoriating religion, His "free Libby" arguments fall on deaf ears from those who see the legal system favor those who abuse the auspices of power. His "commentary" attempts to de-value the role of grand jury, judge, and trial jury ex post facto in this case without giving us anything to chew on. Try again please

it will simply prove that in addition to being smarter than dershowitz and the other 9 amicus petitioners, you're also smarter than the appeals court, eh?

wow . .. it must be hard to live with a brain that big

Federal Rules of Evidence supercede Daubert, but your point is well taken.

If Hitchens went to law school, that'd make it easier for other students to improve their ranking.