Rush Limbaugh has questions
One of Libby's assertions is that, “I didn't lie to anybody, I just forgot what I had said and what and when. There were a lot of things far more important than this that were going on,” so he wanted to bring in a memory expert, and the judge said no. Why would the judge allow some people on the jury who have admitted their dislike for the administration when that could clearly influence their thinking? Why would the judge prevent the defense from revealing that Valerie Plame was not an undercover agent? In fact, more precisely, why would he not allow the defense to question her status at the CIA? Yet, Fitzgerald is free to talk about the war in Iraq. But the defense can't bring up Valerie Plame. I don't know that this is political on the part of this judge; I don't know the judge. I don't know him that well. You know, when you think of -- and we all do -- when you think of trials and the legal system, we think "fair." This doesn't seem fair. Now I sound like a whiny lib, but the judicial system is something else entirely.
That Valerie Plame can't be discussed is outrageous. She is the centerpiece of the trial; there is no legitimate case against Libby if she wasn't a covert op. And she wasn't - even Joe Wilson says so. Libby is getting railroaded.