In fact, I remember reading that one of Libby’s lawyers was chosen specifically because this tactic had been used previously by him.

Which is what I think is happening with this motion.

Since this Libby lawyer didn’t succeed in stopping the trial beforehand, this lawyer on the Libby defense team is setting up Libby’s appeal (covering all the bases), based on the same pre-trial attempt by the defense in conducting a fishing expedition involving classified government documents…claiming in their appeal that Libby didn’t get a fair trial because the evidence that would have shown how “busy” he was could not be pried loose from the Bush administration due to “national security” concerns.

However, the narrowness of the charges brought against Libby have so far thwarted attempts by the Libby defense team to get this tactic to work…but they do keep on trying, don’t they?

I believe both Libby and Cheney will eventually have to testify in regards to how “busy” Libby was during the time in question, so “busy” he couldn’t possibly have remembered something so “inconsequential” as the outing of a covert CIA agent for political CYA purposes.

Christy Hardin Smith @
53

RevDeb at 39 – You know, I’m still not certain on Cheney taking the stand. I can see how he could be good for some contextual detail from his meetings with Libby which they could draw out and then not have to put Libby on the stand to discuss. But Cheney comes with so many potential pitfalls — not the least of which is how he will do on cross with Fitz and whether he would open himself to his own set of problems with nuanced answers. I keep wondering if Cheney’s lawyers will be comfortable with him on the stand. Even with a very limited direct exam, Fiz will have some latitude on cross — and opening your client to that when there is clearly a hint of his being involved and the potential for jeopardy to attach with a wrong move — IN PUBLIC, IN FRONT OF THE MEDIA — well, that’s a whole lot of “ifs” for a sitting Vice President.

I’m leaning toward him not testifying for that reason.

I realize they have to rearrange their schedule at times and the schedule is not always consistent, but still, they could at least say: “such & such hearing will be re-aired at such & such time, subject to change.”

cbl @ 35

knowing there are regular C Span watchers here -

did anyone catch Cong. John Spratt on Washington Journal this morning ? and does anyone know the daily rebroadcast time for same ?

the good Congressman is doing some heavy lifting these days, sure would like to catch him

I’ll post the link when it comes out on the CSPAN VIDEO RSS FEED. Usually, later today.

Yes, I am proud to say he represents my state, although not he is not my Congressman. Smart, no-nonsense kinda guy, knows his shite. He is one of the few decent ones we have.

His only defense is to defend the loss of memory myth [a loss of memory that would be in the range of Global Amnesia or maybe Temporary Brain Death]. As absurd as it is, it looks like his only shot.

I say let him have it. It cuts down on the number of appeals. But what I hope Judge Walton does is say he’ll only consider allowing the memory experts if Libby testifies. That seems reasonable to me. How can you bolster a defense argument if the defendant hasn’t even mounted the defense?

This is the homework defense raised to a new level of absurdity.

I suppose when/if he’s found guilty they will proclaim that that proves his innocence.

–MarkusQ

knowing there are regular C Span watchers here -

did anyone catch Cong. John Spratt on Washington Journal this morning ? and does anyone know the daily rebroadcast time for same ?

the good Congressman is doing some heavy lifting these days, sure would like to catch him

I’ll post the link when it comes out on the CSPAN VIDEO RSS FEED. Usually, later today.

I really thought that Wells questioning of Agent Bond about Libby’s testimony that Cheney and him may have discussed leaking Plame’s name to the press was Wells protecting Cheney and NOT his client. .

this might actually set up an appeal for inadaquate counsil

pretty easy to prove if wells is acting on behalf of cheney and not on behalf of libby