Replies

I guess this Judge never heard of the old saying: "Don't ASSUME anything. When you do, you make an ASS of U and ME! Why would a Judge made a ruling based on something he assumed would take place? It was always Libby's perogative to tesify or not to testify. It was also reported that V.P. Cheney would take the stand on behalf of Libby. That didn't happen either, so how did this numbnuts make the determination that Libby would definitely be taking the stand? What a moron this guy is. Let me guess...he's a Clinton appointee?

Why would a Judge made a ruling based on something he assumed would take place? It was always Libby's perogative to tesify or not to testify.

___________________________________________________________

I have wondered the same thing but after thinking about it I think I understand the reasoning, and it does make some sense. If Libby is allowed to enter reports that he wrote, then in a way he is testifying and the prosecution should have the right to cross examine him about it. If Fitz does not get the opportunity to cross then it is a real bonus for Libby. It would be unfair to the prosecution to let Libby testify without being able to be examined by Fitz and those papers are the same as him testifying in the judges eyes.