The Washington Post discusses Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's closing argument in the Libby case:
Fitzgerald would respond with great frustration in his summation at Libby's trial almost three years [after his initial interview with Libby], saying that Libby's lies had effectively prevented him from learning about all of Cheney's actions in the administration's campaign to undermine Plame's husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, a critic of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.Cheney's Suspected Role in Security Breach Drove Fitzgerald, Washington Post, March 7, 2007.
More than he had previously, Fitzgerald made clear in those remarks that his search for the truth about Cheney was a key ambition in his probe and that his inability to get it was a key provocation for Libby's indictment. Although Cheney was the target, Fitzgerald's investigation could not reach him because of Libby's duplicity.
After Libby's lawyers complained that he was trying to put a "cloud" over Cheney without evidence to back it up, Fitzgerald told the jury on Feb. 20, "We'll talk straight."Id.The Post also helps us sort out the confusing chain of events, allegations, and evidence graphically in Fact vs. Fiction in the Libby Case, March 7, 2007, and What the Jury Decided About These Libby Statements, March 7, 2007.
There was, he said, "a cloud over what the vice president did" during the period before Novak's column was published, and it was created by testimony about Cheney directing Libby and others at the White House to disseminate information on Wilson and Wilson's criticisms.
"We didn't put that cloud there. That cloud remains because the defendant obstructed justice and lied about what happened," Fitzgerald added.
Thanks: Stephanie Knightlinger.