HA ha...
and the RATS take another one in the...
your headline is not accurate.
all the lawyer is saying is that he did not tell the court or special counsel that they'd use a "following orders" defense. he's not saying such a defense will not be used. he's not saying it will be used either.
no lawyer in his right mind is going to telegraph his trial strategy a year in advance of the trial.
The Slimes and Washington Compost are a bunch of liars! The National Inquirer has more credibility than them. They've become the Ghetto of the Ghetto Press.
Spread the truth.
Bill Jeffress is a friend of mine, fraternity brother, and all round good guy. He is a good lawyer and is not going to telegraph his strategy. I am watching this one with interest.
Libby would be nuts to do so since he would have to admit to the allegations. The indictment is for lying and obstructing justice not for leaking classified information.
I don't think Libby is prepared to say yes I lied and obstructed but the WH told me to do it.
So, which is it?
“There is no truth at all to the story that Mr. Libby’s lawyers have advised the Court or the Special Counsel that he will raise a defense based on authorization by superiors. Indeed, there has never been any conference call between Mr. Libby's defense lawyers and Judge Walton. We do not know who reporters are relying on as sources for this story, but any such persons are neither knowledgeable nor authorized to speak for Mr. Libby's defense team.”
This is an even stronger indictment against the MSM reporting of this case. (at least it appears so to me). Given the clear tones Jeffress is using, it seems clear to me that Libby never said anything like, "Cheney (or any superior) authorized him to leak Valerie Plame's identity".
Maybe I'm missing something basic. I honestly don't understand given the clear language of this statement, how it can appear in a story (by MSNBC or anyone) with a headline of "Libby defense to allege Cheney role". It's just absurd! This statement, IMO, should be it's own story, with the headline, "Libby's defense denies charge of superior authorization in leak probe", or something like that.
Maybe some lurking, leftist troll can make an FR account and explain it to me. I'd really like to know why the media keeps reporting the same story, when there's clear evidence that it (Libby saying he had authorization of superiors) was never said.