if "the president authorized it" is Libby's defense, does that mean...

...that his defense team will depose Bush under oath (or at least Cheney, since the authorization was supposedly passed through the VP)? It seems like that is the only way to get at the truth if that's his defense, short of having other witnesses testify whose knowledge of what was authorized and what wasn't is unassailable. It's hard to imagine any way to go forward without first Cheney's testimony that he did or didn't tell Libby he conveyed the president's authorization, and then Bush's testimony if Cheney claims he did authorize the disclosures.

On edit: and would the prosecution have an opportunity to question him as well?

"Yes, I authorized Mr. Libby to leak classified information as political payback. I can do that. I'm the President. I can do anything I want."

..."Raise your right hand and repeat after me...."

If the President asked you to leak something and the White House lawyer told you it was legal because the information was de facto declassified, wouldn't you cover your bases and get it in writing from the White House lawyer?

Libby was not charged with leaking -- but rather the cover up.

Why would Libby implicate Cheney and Bush in something he's not even charged with, unless he's cooperating with the prosecution? If he's not defending himself against the charge of unauthorized leaking, why attempt to divert responsibility for the leaks?

a) a judge saying that authorization to blow the cover is relevant to the perjury charge (which Fitzgerald denies)

b) demand documents and testimony that the executive will refuse to provide and then

c) argue that he is prevented from making his defense by the same government that is prosecuting him and demand acquittal.

It probably won't work, first because the authorization really isn't relevant, and second becaue thanks to 9/11, courts are happy to agree with the governmnet that classified evidence should be withheld.

...famous graymail stategy-- makes sense. In a way its a shame, because if the court dismisses the claim then Bush dodges the legal bullet, and might even make light of the political bullet. "I am not under investigation, blah, blah, blah...."

www.juancole.com

David Corn had speculated that Libby would graymail the government to stop his prosecution, by demanding all sorts of classified information that the Bush administration would not want to turn over. But I'd say that Libby has gone from graymail a step further to blackmail. He has signalled that he is not going down by himself, is not going to be a good soldier, and will drag Bush himself down with him if he can.

By the way, isn't anyone else outraged that Karl Rove remains in the White House after it was openly revealed that he personally outed an undercover CIA operative for petty political purposes? Why isn't the press demanding his resignation every day?

I predicted this "every man for himself" scenario last November. It seemed to me that the loyal thing to have done would have been to plead guilty, take three years of jail, and then have Bush pardon Libby just as he was going out of office. Libby is loyal to no one but himself, obviously.

are coming off
Oh happy days

That is NOT his defence. He made a statement that he was told he was authorised by Bush to leak certain information from the NIE. It is my understanding that the NIE itself CAN be declassified by the President after ensuring that it doesn't expose information that he CAN'T declassify (such as the identity of a covert agent).

The testimony Libby gave is that he was authorised to disseminate certain pages from the NIE, and apparently none of those pages mentions Plame in any way. So really this testimony is more a background to what went on than a defence of his actions.

Besides, there is no way in hell that he would change his story again. If he now claimed he was authorised to leak Plame's name, that would mean he lied to investigators when he said he did not, in which case he would be basically pleading guilty to yet another charge.