I have a new story on closing arguments at the Libby trial. It was a bizarre day, reaching a low point when prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald told the jury that Lewis Libby knew that pointing out Valerie Wilson’s role in sending her husband to Africa was “something…that could lead to people being killed.” The defense objected, because the judge had long ago told the jury that there would be no evidence presented about whether Mrs. Wilson’s job status at the CIA was covert, classified, or other, and that jurors could not consider it in their deliberations. But Fitzgerald ignored the judge’s prohibition and plowed ahead, leading the defense to step in:

The problem was, of course, that Fitzgerald had no proof of what he was saying. After the defense objection, Fitzgerald stressed that he wasn’t telling the jury that any of that happened, only that it could have happened. And, more importantly, that Libby might have thought it could have happened. And if he did, that would make it important, wouldn’t it? So it would be something he wouldn’t forget, right? Fitzgerald told the jurors they should think about this imagined “people being killed” scenario to understand Libby’s “state of mind,” but they should not draw any conclusions about “whether it’s true or false.”