Week before last, I observed:

If Scooter Libby is not guilty as sin, the MSM has done us a great disservice...I wonder if there is another side of the story.

Today in the Washington Post, Victoria Toensing rises for the defense (doing what she does best, prosecuting):

"There's a reason why responsible prosecutors don't bring perjury cases on mere "he said, he said" evidence. Without an underlying crime or tangible evidence of obstruction (think Martha Stewart trying to destroy phone logs), the trial becomes a mishmash of faulty memories in which witnesses can seem as guilty as the defendant. Any prosecutor knows that memories differ, even vividly, and each party can be convinced that his or her version is the truthful one.

"If we accept Fitzgerald's low threshold for bringing a criminal case, then why stop at Libby? This investigation has enough questionable motives and shadowy half-truths and flawed recollections to fill a court docket for months. So here are my own personal bills of indictment:"

Read the full (2200 words) article here.

UPDATE: It occurs to me that if you did not remember my previous post, you may have missed the point of this post. Please feel free to post in the comments your favorite defense of Libby article and/or your own thoughts.