[conservative in nyc]

LOL, obviously if he would have testified, you would be saying he shouldn't have, that no defendant should, as many lawyers often council. I'm sure they are second quessing themselves now, as all do.

Well, hindsight is always 20-20. But the TV talking heads are saying that Libby's lawyers all but promised to put Libby on the stand in their opening statements (saying something like "you will hear Libby say..."). The judge was supposedly shocked Libby didn't take the stand. I haven't been following this case closely enough to know if any of that is true, but teasing a jury and not delivering would look a bit suspicious - even if a jury isn't really supposed to take that into consideration.

[roses of sharon]

You are correct, the jury took an enormous amount into consideration, that they should not.

And they admitted it today on national TV.

Which is why it is a travesty, and has been from the beginning.

Fitz admittedly talked frequently with Wilson on the phone during the investigation, he believed that the WH was sitting around devising a plan to punish Wilson.

And his jury reflected that view, completely.

Fitz also knew about Armitage before his investigation began.