I still think Libby’s best defense is pleading not guilty by reason of insanity.

I mean, only someone insane would out a covert CIA agent (and her cover CIA company) whose responsibility involved protecting America from any terrorists getting WMD to use in killing U.S. citizens, right? Insane, right? Stark raving mad, right? Crazy, crazy, crazy, right?

I rest my case.

To say nothing of scribbling notes about Tom Cruise on the covers of sensitive CIA documents in the OVP. Vanquishing the careers of dedicated underlings must have gotten a tad boring for him that day.
Perhaps it was a Wednesday….

BobbyG @ 18

I’m still waiting for a persuasive argument regarding exactly what vital national interest was served by publicly identifying Valerie Plame and her job.

Putting aside all the purported POTUS/VPOTUS ad hoc insta-declass authority, CPD vs WINPAC, “classified vs covert” red herring blabbity-blab ad nauseum stuff.

WHAT legit national interest was served?

These scummy pricks.
_

You won’t find any rational for outing Plame. She was “fair game” as Rove puts it.

Their idea, stated publicly, was that she ‘entered the game’ by pushing to have her husband go to Niger and debunk the yellowcake allegation. But, they were wrong about her motivation and they were wrong that she initiated anything since the request for information came from Cheney’s office. So, their reasoning for making her ‘fair game’ was bogus.

However, their logic is so completely off track that they ignored the LAW. What’s the matter with Republicans and the LAW? Have they NO values? I think it stems from all those years when Democrats were in charge and Republicans began to disregard Democrat Law as irrelevant. Now they’re finding out that LAW is LAW and they can be nailed to the wall for it and can’t even be saved by conservative DC Circuit judges since those judges now know Bush is roasted lame duck and have absolutely no incentive to help him out.

I also have to agree that without any obvious national interest being served by the outing, Bush & Co. just look stupid, petty and criminal.

I mean, only someone insane would out a covert CIA agent (and her cover CIA company) whose responsibility involved protecting America from any terrorists getting WMD to use in killing U.S. citizens, right? Insane, right? Stark raving mad, right? Crazy, crazy, crazy, right?

I rest my case.

But hey learned way back juries can be so unpredictable. Lost solid cases with unpredictable juries Guess the OJ Trial is the best public example . I mean how do you doubt DNA .

This is why I now fear that the entire charade devised by Team Libby has been an orchestrated attempt to appeal to one, solitary, lone, O’Reilly fanatic that they have installed on the jury.

How else to explain the barrage of irrelevancies that the judge has unaccountably allowed as evidence? Rove? Cheney? Bartlett, et al? Piffle! Which of them has anything to do with whether Libby lied to investigators?

Sad to say it looks like it could be in the bag for Libby, by virtue of one well placed wingnut in the deliberation room…

Is it possible, after conviction (assuming there is one), for Libby to plea bargain by giving up Cheney or Bush? Or is that not possible at this point?

Personally, I doubt that there will be anything but a hung jury. A vew loyal Dem jurors will vote to convict because they hate Republicans. A few jurors will think there is reasonable doubt.
So, even if there is a guilty verdict, IMO Libby will be pardoned immediately. He is one loyal soldier and the VP and P know it.

Is it possible, after conviction (assuming there is one), for Libby to plea bargain by giving up Cheney or Bush? Or is that not possible at this point?

That’s the whole reason Fitz went down this rabbit hole to begin with. To get Libby in a vice, with jail time hanging over his head, to compel him to give up Cheney. SOP for a prosecutor working his way slowly upward through a chain of corruption.

Gregory says on “Hardball” that Bush is going to attack Iran.

Oh, goody.