I just hit Plame House, arriving to find Pach and Swopa in a flurry of domestic bliss. We are drinking tea and scoping out the week ahead, which should kick off with 7 hours of Libby testimony tapes. Swopa said anyone who wanted to watch the Superbowl was welcome to turn the TV on. Nobody moved. We are geeks.
It's really exciting to be here. Sadly, I think I may have scared Dick Cheney off, and have to agree with Marcy — I don't see any way they call him to the stand. But one of the burning questions here is, what the hell is Libby's defense? After having thrown Karl Rove's name into the lion's den during opening statements like a pork chop suit, even Judge Walton has since noted that nothing of the "Libby as Rove's as scapegoat" theory has shown up in any of the defense questioning. One has to wonder why they decided to include Cheney's name on the witness list at all if calling him would do nothing but implicate both Cheney and Libby further. Pach speculated that it allowed the defense to push the questioning of potential jurors with regard to knowledge of Dick Cheney and if their response was negative strike them for cause in a way that they would not have been able to do otherwise. I really haven't heard any other reason that sounds valid
And the great unanswered question — will Libby testify? Is Libby's ego so big he won't be able to help himself? Do the lawyers actually think this is a good idea? Or as some have speculated, is Libby now pinning his hopes on appeal before a friendly judge? It is not out of the realm of possibility that they will mount a rather tepid defense and then call it a day.