The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > The BBQ Pit

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-13-2007, 05:33 PM
Hamlet Hamlet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
No Libby, Libby, Libby on the stand.

Defense counsel has stated that he's not going to call Libby nor Cheney to testify for the defense in Libby's trial.

After all the bluster, all the grandstanding, we're not going to get to hear sworn testimony from Libby or Cheney. It is an interesting piece of manuvering by defense counsel, who had represented until just recently, that both would take the stand. I'm guessing that closing arguments will be replete with objections from the government while defense counsel argues, without evidence, that Libby just plain forgot when he talked to the investigators and the grand jury. In addition, there's the issue of the relevance of all the evidence and cross examinations, that set the stage for the faulty memory defense, only to have no relevance because Libby won't be testifying. It was a shrewd move by defense counsel to walk that thin line between offering evidence that shows he MIGHT have forgotten, but no evidence that he actually did. The judge has taken under advisement the issues of just how far defense can go in putting evidence of Libby's busyness (busyocity? busyable?) without having to put his guy on the stand.

But mostly I'm just pissed because I wanted Libby and Cheney subjected to cross examination by Fitzgerald. Bastards stole my fun.
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 02-13-2007, 05:42 PM
wring wring is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Yea, mine too. I chuckled at the one witness who was testifying about how forgetful Libby was, that ostensibly, you could have a conversation w/him about a subject and he'd act like it had only just occurred to him hours/days later. Saturday Night LIve did a not so funny skecth about that sort of thing "Mr. Short Term Memory" or something like that. I forget.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-13-2007, 05:59 PM
Mtgman Mtgman is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
He shouldn't have stood under that pear tree.

Enjoy,
Steven
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-13-2007, 06:00 PM
Squink Squink is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet
Bastards stole my fun.
That is sad. However, today does have a sunny side, as the Cunningham/Wilkes/Foggo scandal just picked up indictments involving Hookers. That's always good for a media circus!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-13-2007, 06:02 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 24,491
Yesterday afternoon, Jane Hamsher, Marcy Wheeler, and Jeralyn Merritt had a discussion on PoliticsTV, mostly about the pros and cons of Cheney and Libby taking the stand. It's about 9 minutes long, was informative (all three women have blogged extensively about the case, and Wheeler's published a book about it) and entertaining, and can be found here.

I'm disappointed that neither Shooter nor Scooter will take the stand, but I'm not at all surprised.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-13-2007, 06:04 PM
Frank Frank is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 16,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet
But mostly I'm just pissed because I wanted Libby and Cheney subjected to cross examination by Fitzgerald. Bastards stole my fun.
Yeah, no shit. There goes the impeachment for perjury.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-13-2007, 06:05 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 24,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squink
That is sad. However, today does have a sunny side, as the Cunningham/Wilkes/Foggo scandal just picked up indictments involving Hookers. That's always good for a media circus!
Will the circus be unbroken...?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-13-2007, 07:04 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: New England
Posts: 26,744
Don't juries tend to take a defendant's non-testifying as evidence of guilt?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-13-2007, 07:15 PM
Hamlet Hamlet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves
Don't juries tend to take a defendant's non-testifying as evidence of guilt?
They are specifically instructed by the judge not to do that. The 5th Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the privilege against self-incrimination, which includes the decision not to testify in ones behalf.

That being said, I think the jury will be surprised that Libby won't testify about his "faulty memory".
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-13-2007, 07:48 PM
Captain Carrot Captain Carrot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
If I were on the jury, I would be inclined to say "Oh, he's so busy and important and has so many responsibilities, he couldn't remember. Poor baby. "
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-13-2007, 07:50 PM
Gadarene Gadarene is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Washington, D.C.
Posts: 6,614
I was looking forward to watching it from the well.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-13-2007, 07:57 PM
Merijeek Merijeek is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet
They are specifically instructed by the judge not to do that. The 5th Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the privilege against self-incrimination, which includes the decision not to testify in ones behalf.

That being said, I think the jury will be surprised that Libby won't testify about his "faulty memory".
I heard this addressed on the radio today. Generally taking the Fifth isn't supposed to show guilt or but in regards to perjury it's generally seen as the opposite. According to what I heard anyway.

-Joe
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-13-2007, 10:11 PM
elelle elelle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
A saddass setup for superior pardon down the line.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-14-2007, 07:26 AM
Zoe Zoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Did I hear somewhere that Libby couldn't use the forgetfulness defense if he didn't testify?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-14-2007, 07:30 AM
Merijeek Merijeek is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by elelle
A saddass setup for superior pardon down the line.
Do you think there's a chance in hell of Libby serving a day past January 2009?

-Joe
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-14-2007, 08:02 AM
Hamlet Hamlet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoe
Did I hear somewhere that Libby couldn't use the forgetfulness defense if he didn't testify?
The judge had said that earlier, and is expected to make a more detailed ruling about what will be allowed today. I'm guessing that it will come down to allowing defense counsel to argue he MIGHT have forgotten because of all this busy, busy stuff he had to go on, but not that he DID forget.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-14-2007, 08:31 AM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet
That being said, I think the jury will be surprised that Libby won't testify about his "faulty memory".
Well, what's the point of examining him if he has a faulty memory?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-14-2007, 08:44 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: New England
Posts: 26,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet
They are specifically instructed by the judge not to do that. The 5th Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the privilege against self-incrimination, which includes the decision not to testify in ones behalf.
I know all that, but still, if that's the reason the judge gives in his instructions, is there really any way to avoid leaving them the impression that if he had testified, he would have shown his guilt? I don't see how. Juries are human.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-14-2007, 08:30 PM
elelle elelle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merijeek
Do you think there's a chance in hell of Libby serving a day past January 2009?

-Joe
Nope. Presidental exit pardon; a stumble thumb nicked with an ill-used Boy Scout knife, a winking nod to the past honorable tradition of falling on the sword for one's country.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-14-2007, 09:58 PM
Frostillicus Frostillicus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Can a person really act as an effective chief of staff to the vice president of the United States if he has a poor memory.

VP Cheney: "Scooter, I told you to inform the president not to mention the African yellow-cake in his State of the Union address. What the fuck?"

Scooter Libby: "Oops."

Last edited by Frostillicus; 02-14-2007 at 09:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.