Libby's account in CIA leak case 'ludicrous': prosecutor

Prosecutors told jurors Tuesday that former vice-presidential aide I. Lewis(Scooter)Libby concocted an implausible story in the CIA leak case, while defence lawyers said it would be unfair to convict Libby in a case with so many memory failures.

Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice-President Dick Cheney, is charged with lying and obstructing the investigation into the 2003 leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.

If convicted, Libby would face up to 30 years in prison.

Libby told authorities that he learned about Plame from Cheney, forgot the information, then learned it again a month later from NBC reporter Tim Russert.

In closing arguments of the month-long trial, prosecutor Peter Zeidenberg said it's hard to believe that Libby would forget about Plame since he was eagerly trying to discredit her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had accused the Bush administration of doctoring prewar intelligence on Iraq.

"It's simply not credible to believe he would forget this information about Wilson's wife," Zeidenberg said. "It's ludicrous."

On a TV screen, Zeidenberg displayed a flow chart showing the faces of several Bush administration officials who testified they told Libby about Plame. From Libby, Zeidenberg drew arrows to people who said Libby talked to them about Plame.

'It's simply not credible to believe he [Libby] would forget this information It's ludicrous' Prosecutor Peter Zeidenberg

"Is it conceivable that all these witnesses would make the same mistake, the same error in their memory?" Zeidenberg asked.

Defence lawyer Theodore Wells portrayed the case as one of competing recollections. Russert has testified the conversation about Plame never occurred.

Wells said it did happen, noted several inconsistencies in Russert's statements and told jurors that the men may simply have different recollections about the same conversation.

"You cannot convict Mr. Libby solely on the word of this man," Wells said. "It would just be fundamentally unfair."

Prosecutors say Libby was afraid he'd be fired

Prosecutors believe Libby feared being fired and prosecuted for discussing official government information about Plame with reporters.

"He had to come up with a story that was innocuous," Zeidenberg said, arguing that Libby concocted a story about learning it from Russert rather than Cheney.

If jurors believe Russert's testimony that the conversation never happened, Zeidenberg said, then Libby had to forget nine conversations about Plame and invent two others.

Zeidenberg also rejected the idea that Libby was made a scapegoat by the White House to protect Karl Rove, Bush's top political strategist. It was just one aspect of a broad defence strategy, but Zeidenberg seized on it almost at the onset of his closing.

"Did you hear any evidence about a conspiracy, a White House conspiracy to scapegoat Mr. Libby?" Zeidenberg asked. "If you think back and draw blank, I suggest to you, ladies and gentlemen, it's not a problem with your memory. It's because there was no such evidence."

Wells touched on the idea that Libby was being made a scapegoat for Rove. Wells has described how White House spokesman Scott McClellan publicly declared Rove's innocence in the leak case but failed to do so for Libby. Angered, Libby appealed to Cheney, who intervened and had McClellan exonerate Libby, too.

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald says Libby felt guilty about discussing Plame with reporters and was trying to cover his tracks. The Rove theory allows defence lawyers to say that Libby felt wronged by the White House and was acting as an innocent man trying to clear his name.