Questions Abound in Libby Trial

RUSH: I have some questions for you about the Libby trial. Since opening statements were completed today, the trial now begins. We have talked about the controversial things that have been stated today, such as by Fitzgerald that Cheney wrote Libby a note that Libby then destroyed, told Libby to start leaking Valerie Plame’s name and so forth, and yet Cheney is not indicted. There was no crime committed here in terms of the original charge anyway, and so Cheney’s name has been bandied about, even though he hasn’t been indicted, not even unindicted coconspirator.
Then Libby’s lawyer got up and said that Libby?s not going to take the fall for the Karl Rove wing in the Bush White House. ?I’m not going to be the sacrificial lamb.? And, you know, that’s I think at least to a certain extent, that’s the legal team, since there’s so many Bush-haters on this jury, the legal team trying to position Libby as also being victimized by these evil guys inside the White House, rather than part of the team, but here’s some other questions for you. These are questions about the judge. I’ve been curious about this judge and his rulings for the past nine months, all these pretrial motions and so forth. Here’s some of the questions as the trial now is underway. Why would this judge prevent Libby — i.e., the defense — from letting the jury hear testimony from an expert on memory? I mean, you’re the accused, you’re the defendant in there. They have to prove your guilt.
One of Libby’s assertions is that, ?I didn’t lie to anybody, I just forgot what I had said and what and when. There were a lot of things far more important than this that were going on,? so he wanted to bring in a memory expert, and the judge said no. Why would the judge allow some people on the jury who have admitted their dislike for the administration when that could clearly influence their thinking? Why would the judge prevent the defense from revealing that Valerie Plame was not an undercover agent? In fact, more precisely, why would he not allow the defense to question her status at the CIA? Yet, Fitzgerald is free to talk about the war in Iraq. But the defense can’t bring up Valerie Plame. I don’t know that this is political on the part of this judge; I don’t know the judge. I don’t know him that well. You know, when you think of — and we all do — when you think of trials and the legal system, we think “fair.” This doesn’t seem fair. Now I sound like a whiny lib, but the judicial system is something else entirely.