So Shooter Knew Team Libby Would Not Call Him To Testify. What Does That Mean?

[Blackhatjack]

It means that the pardon for Libby has probably already been written, just awaiting the righ time for Bush to sign and issue it.

It was all a bluff about the classified material Team Libby needed to defend himself, and the need to put Cheney and other top WH officials on the stand --hoping the 'graymail' gambit would kill the case without going to trial.

Now Libby has to toe the line and take the hit to protect the higherups, but mostly to get his coveted pardon.

[Annces]

1. Jumping to conclusions

Libby may be a loyal person to the last.

[H2O Man]

4. The sky is fallin! n/t

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. Could be, but may I suggest the question is wrong?

It is not that Cheney KNEW he would not be called, but rather, he KNEW he would not testify.
I suspect that the subpeonas issued to him, Rove and others were real and issued in good faith. A good defense lawyer leaves all his options open, even the testimony of his client. Although a prosecutory must turn over exculp. info., he does not give the defense his game plan. Witness lists, yes, but not a game plan. They did not know exactly what Fitz was going to prove. Much of the testimony they heard probably surprised them and shaped their response.

They would have called Cheney if it would have helped their cause - and his refusal to come in response to the subpeona, would have caused a huge delay as that issue was litigated. maybe even a mistrial.
as for the pardon, while I agree with your describing a possibility, I think they would have pardoned him long ago, before all this shit came out.

[Blackhatjack]

9. Having been in the shoes of Libby's Defense Attorney, I can tell you....

Anything can happen at a trial, that is for sure.

However, given the tools of discovery used in this case, both sides knew exactly what evidence the other would present BEFORE the trial began. The only unknown for the prosecution was exactly what Libby would say if he took the witness stand, and in that case they were ready to impeach him if he varied even the slightest over what he previously said before trial.

I have had people under subpoena who we never intended to call at trial, and we told them in advance, but as you point out circumstances can change and you need them under subpoena to bring them in if needed. I suspect that was the purpose in this case.

As I posted earlier, Team Libby KNEW exactly what Libby would be crossed with if he testified, and there would be an additional opportunity for Libby to 'open doors' to new areas presently closed to the prosecution, plus screw up IN FRONT OF THE JURY.

At the end of the Prosecutor's case you know exactly what you are up against, and IMHO they gave Libby good advice about not testifying.

However, it appears that there is little chance Libby will escape conviction on the limited charge of lying before the grand jury. The leaking of classified information is not an issue, but rather goes to motive.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

11. thanks, I agree completely.

Can't wait for the defense to rest. I suspect little or no rebuttal

[madame defarge]

3. Per Lawrence O'Donnell

(on Al Franken yesterday)

O'Donnell has apparently has spent lots of time in court rooms; his father & brother are prosecuting attorneys & he does a lot of research for parts he plays by sitting in on trials. According to him, the only reason they're not putting Libby on the witness stand is because he's guilty as hell.

[durrrty libby]

6. Hee

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[The Wizard]

10. Rule of thumb

Defendants who don't take the stand (plead the Fifth)are guilty. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The dilemma is: what's reasonable to one may not be reasonable to another.

[Blackhatjack]

12. To testify or not depends upon ....

What kind of evidence the Prosecution has put on.

As you correctly point out, the burden of proof is on the Prosecutor to prove each and every element of each of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the Prosecution rests its case and has failed to provide sufficient evidence to meet that standard, it would be unwise for the Defendant to testify.

The court will give the jury instructions on the law before they are set out to deliberate, one of which will be that they may not draw any inference of guilt of the defendant because he chose not to testify, that the burden is on the Prosecution to prove their case and the Defendant does not have to prove anything.

However, as a practical matter, if it is a close case the jury tends to hold it against the Defendant if he does not testify.

[mmonk]

5. .

[HooptieWagon]

7. Cheney never was going to testify.

1)If Cheney testified truthfully, that would probably implicate him and bring on an indictment for treason or impeachment. If he testified untruthfully, that could bring charges of perjury and impeachment. It's a no-win for Cheney.

2) If Cheney testified, he would be cross-examined by Fitz. Since much of Fitz's case against Libby was tied to Cheney, a cross-examination would allow Fitz to present the bulk of his case all over again.

3) I order to protect himself, Cheney has all but certainly promised Libby a pardon in exchange for not calling him as a witness. Expect a dragged out appeals process, and then a pardon when the appeals are exhausted, or before chimp leaves office - whichever comes first.

4) Libby's attorneys probably were aware of all this from the get-go. Cheney was probably included on the possible witness list in order to weed out any non-Koolaid drinking jurors.

[Edweird]

8. Maybe Fitz is next on chimperor's resignation list