Judge to hear arguments on Libby tapes today

[radfringe]

Judge to hear arguments on Libby tapes today
By MATT APUZZO | Associated Press
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/4526142.html
Houston Chronicle | Feb. 5, 2007

WASHINGTON — Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's right to a fair trial might be jeopardized if tapes of his grand jury testimony are released to the public, his attorneys say.

A federal judge is scheduled to hear arguments this morning on whether to release Libby's tapes after they are played in court. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald successfully fought to enter the tapes into evidence and plans to play about eight hours of Libby's closed-door testimony regarding the leak of a CIA operative's name.

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton has ordered that trial evidence be released after each court session. But Libby's lawyers say grand jury testimony — the sworn statements Libby gave investigations about his conversations with Vice President Dick Cheney and journalists — is too sensitive to be released.

The tapes would almost certainly be played on television, radio and the Internet. Jurors are under court order to avoid such media but defense attorneys say that's not enough.

--snip--

In the tapes, Libby discusses conversations he had regarding Valerie Plame, the wife of a prominent Iraq war critic, former ambassador Joseph Wilson. Plame's identity was leaked to reporters in 2003.


---------------

-- Russert is expected to testify late tuesday

-- Prosecution is expected to rest it's case this week

-- No confirmation that Cheney and/or Rove will testify although they have been subpoenaed

-- No confirmation that Libby will take the stand in his own defense

Blatherheads have been saying it would be more damaging to Libby if Cheney/Rove/Libby took the stand.

Also given Cheney's credibility standing, Cheney could damage himself if he testified as much of the testimony heard so far points to him as the "MANIPULATOR". It also brings more into question that just who leaked what when and how it happened - it also brings into question the entire justification for invading Iraq and how much of that intelligence was manipulated, cherry-picked, spun, or fabricated

[sam sarrha]

1. no way Libby will take the stand in his defense.. he has no defense against TREASON, either does *

or cheney

[MiniMe]

5. He isn't being tried for treason, he is being tried for perjury

Not that new charges couldn't be produced, just pointing out that those charges are not in play (god I hate that phrase) at the current time.

[sam sarrha]

17. PERGERY TO COVER UP TREASON

[radfringe]

2. pointing dots

[DemReadingDU]

15. good toon!

[Kagemusha]

3. So umm, release them after the trial?

Immediately?

Edit: And um, the jury would get to see them either way so what's the point of hiding the tapes!?

[HereSince1628]

4. Seems to me, that in the media the tapes will come along with commentary

so not only would the jury be reviewing one aspect of evidence more than the others, they may also be swayed about the tapes meaning and significance by the utterances of commentators.

So I'm guessing a defense lawyer wouldn't want them out in the public until after the verdict was in, and considering the possibility of appeals, maybe longer.

[radfringe]

6. The trial is being reported with commentary already

and you have FireDog Lake live blogging from the trial, news articles, talkinghead blather

the jurors have just as much of a chance of being "influenced" by those sources as they do by the blather on the tapes. If the concern is really about a juror hearing commentary then they can always sequester them

IMHO it's a weak excuse, I suspect the tapes are really really damaging which is why Fitzgerald wants them in and the Libby Defense team wants them out.

[HereSince1628]

10. Your right, but while relatively few follow the blogging, the tapes would get

extensive exposure in the free-tv media. I think there is a quantitative difference rather than aqualitative one. I expect the Libby team to argue something like that even if it's a weak position.

I have no doubt you are correct that the tapes are very damaging to Libby's case, after all Libby's responses to the investigation and testimony in the GJ is what got him indicted.

[radfringe]

12. the other alternative to sequestering the jury

would be to clear the courtroom of observers, play the tapes just for the jury

[Kagemusha]

16. For the record, it seems Fitzgerald is arguing our point in court right now.

(I'm writing at ~10am EST, Mon.)

[salin]

7. Don't they *have* to appear if they have been subpeonaed?

Or is this an issue that they have been subpeonaed (as in 'on standby') but may not be called (eg Fitz's choice, not their choice?)

[Crabby Appleton]

8. They were subpoenaed by the defense

just means they have to be available, not that the defense actually is going to call them to testify.

[salin]

9. got it - thanks.

[H2O Man]

11. The case does

not appear to be moving in a direction where calling either one would help Libby's case.

[radfringe]

13. that's what the blatherheads are saying

especially since alot of the "dots" are pointing at cheney and the fact they had a difficult time finding a jury who felt they could be objective during Cheney's testimony

[maine_raptor]

14. Timmy on Tuesday, eh?

I wonder how Tweety will spin that?

I noticed that when the memo talking about a Timmy/Tweety feud, it was not mentioned that night on MSNBC.

I don't remember even Keith saying anything about it.