> Larry wrote: > Given that the discussion involved memory and how it works then yes its > pertinent. Also Libby's defense is using forgetting as an excuse. Therefore > its relevant.
But Libby is getting much more complicated with memory. He's saying that: (1.) He's doesn't remember exactly when he talked to whom about what despite the fact that his boss specifically asked him to take action on it - which is all documented. It seriously stretches credibility, but that's reasonable in theory. (2.) While he's fuzzy on when he talked to whom about what, he specifically remembers an event that, according to the other participant, Tim Russert, never occurred. This REALLY stretches credibility for 2 reasons: a.) why is he fuzzy on other things but clear on this, and b.) the other person has corroborating evidence, albeit circumstantial. It's just not credible to me that during the administration's biggest push - to prove we had to invade Iraq - that Libbey is going to forget his boss telling him to bury/smear evidence to the contrary. Further, that he's going to forget everything else but remember an event that, circumstantially, seems to never have occurred, is a bridge too far. Unless the Defense pulls a rabbit out of a hat, I'm guessing the jury will agree. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7 Experience Flex 2 & MX7 integration & create powerful cross-platform RIAs http:http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;56760587;14748456;a?http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=LVNU Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:227800 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
