There is a moral in this: do not screw with the judge.
Libby's defense led the judge to believe, apparently several times, that Libby would be testifying in the case. That almost assuredly was weighed by the judge in some of the decisions he made earlier in the case. Now Libby's not testifying after all, and the judge is angry that he has been deceived. So he is not giving the defense any benefits of the doubt now.
The defense here seems to have not put up a full battle. Not calling Cheney to testify is telling.
Not putting Libby up after you told the court he was testifying: these things really weaken the case and damage credibility.
So, why are they doing that? I assume these are well-connected and savvy lawyers. Why are they not pulling those above them into court to save their man?
My speculation is that it is because the Libby team knows the fix is in. If Libby doesn't haul them in and embarrass them, and doesn't take the stand and expose himself to damaging his bosses, he will probably be convicted. But then the President will be well-disposed to pardon him, and probably will.
Of course I have no idea this is so, but it seems the logical conclusion given the defense's surprising behavior. They're essentially laying down and letting themselves be killed. Which tells me that they know that he's got a Get Out Of Jail Free card.
Do you think they have a signed pardon?
He could end up doing time under this theory.
Apparently the judge was guilty of not paying proper attention - which seems to have been a problem since the beginning. If I have interpreted it correctly, my understanding (from reading JustOneMinute) is that one of the defense attorneys has pointed out to the judge that the defense has always explicitly left open the possibility that Libby might not testify, and that the judge has backed down from his earlier mistaken claim that they did not do so (although apparently without reversing the judge's own rulings based on that mistake).
I don't see what your comments have to do with the issue in question.
I'm not a lawyer but I would think that the having the defendant testify or not, whether in the defense all along or brought about by what happened in court is none of the judge's concern. I would think that if he punished the defense because he thought he was strung along would be grounds for appeal.
It boils down to Russert said, Libby said. That is it. Nothing more. The two disagree under oath and it will turn on believability of Russert.
>>That almost assuredly was weighed by the judge in some of the decisions he made earlier in the case.<<
It shouldn't have been.
If the judge doesn't really think this is an easy ground for appeal, he's an idiot. How in the world can he instruct the jury to ignore the fact that the defendant didn't testify in his own behalf when he's not doing that?
Instead of reposting, I'm pretty sure here's the reason for wrapping up the case at this stage:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1784841/posts?page=116#116