[Bahbah]

I thought the rest of the commentary at JOM was as interesting as that first bit, so here it is:

"I predict that while the stipulation might be whittled down a bit--the judge thinking the govt might have misunderstood (ie. been taken to the cleaners by shrewder counsel), most of this stuff will find it's way into the record even if Libby does not testify.
WHAT IS CRITICAL AT THIS POINT IS THAT THE JUDGE HAS BACKED WAY OFF of earlier comments suggesting Libby can't use CIPA stuff etc if he doesn't testify. He can, if he lays the proper foundation.

The more subtle point is the defense counsel has outmaneuvered the prosecution at several key points and the prosecution knows it and is off its edge in my opinion.

(I lent Jim Engle last night's pleading and we discussed this. We seem to be in agreement on this point-- The defense is both fighting for its points on the evidence AND Smacking the SP around a little.)

I thought Woodward was an impressive witness, helpful to Libby and that the jury is paying attention--asking him if anyone else knew--to which he said he'd told Pincus."

[Txsleuth]

Thanks for posting the JOM notes...they make more sense to my ignorant mind than the testimony at this time.

[SE Mom]

Thanks for the ping- read about Woodward's remarks earlier. This is all as clear as mud..