BooMan points out why the defense may be relying on smokescreens and red herrings. Short version: Libby has less chance of acquittal than Orville Redenbacher has of branching into the canned soup market.

In any case, TPM reader LG reminds us that while the White House may indeed be scapegoating to protect Rove, this in no way absolves Libby of the charges for which he stands accused. And one has to wonder if a presidential pardon will forthcoming even after Libby delivers Rove and Cheney with a side of fava beans and a nice bottle of Chianti?

Over at Hullabaloo, Digby sees Libby’s trial as illuminating a White House divided between two power centers and anticipates a barrage of evidence that Cheney has been running a shadow government from the beginning. Alongside speculation that the president may be forced to demand Cheney’s resignation, Digby also prognosticates the inevitable GOP attack machine gunning hard for Fitzgerald over the next few weeks.

Given the trail of testimony apparently leading to Cheney’s office, Wonkette offers this “Healing Scenario” for the State of the Union Address (hint: Pelosi’s hiding the warrant under her skirt).

John Amato from C&L considers a possible relationship between Ari Fleischer’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment and his truncated career as White House mouthpiece. For an added bonus, Nicole Belle posts a video update from Christy and Marcy.

Christy Hardin Smith offers a solid summary of Judge Walton’s charge to the jury and opening statements from both sides. Don’t forget to read on for an “interesting tidbit” from the government’s first witness, former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, Marc Grossman.

With the mainstream media so intrinsically enmeshed the Libby trial, Wendy Hoke at Creative Ink notes that this is the kairotic moment for the ascendancy of a “citizen media” to balance the primary analysis.

James Joyner observes an interesting rhetorical diminution in the defense team’s references to Valerie Plame likening it to a nostalgic romp down Lewinsky Lane. Also, Joyner questions the wisdom of a confrontational cross for a witness so clearly cooperating with the case.

Finally, From the Desk of Patrick Fitzgerald posts examples of Libby’s schedule noting that he was no busier than Grossman, yet somehow one of these men needed no reminder to tell the truth.

Noting the pervasive criticism of the MSM among the blogosphere, Pachacutec offers a broad summary of mainstream journalism’s criticism of the criticism. Be sure to read on for an exceptional discussion of blogger/journalist complimentarity and to answer the question, “How would you feel about someone showing up at your place of work to do more or less what you do, for free?”

On the other side, MaineWebReport questions David Ho’s recent article portraying Libby bloggers as being in the throes of an identity crisis and painting a “questionable image” of the MBA’s organizational efforts. Describing Ho’s ilk as “the spoiled sibling forced to share attention” he notes the inevitability of bias permeating a writer’s work but that it is “unnatural … when these same writers try to pretend it isn’t occurring, while at the same time chastising this mystery beast of a lawsuit-addled blogosphere.”

As the jury pool (finally) reaches critical mass, TalkLeft ponders the wisdom of allowing someone with personal connections to the case to sit on the jury.

TAP Online sets out to correct a central misconception floated around conservative circles (including the Wall Street Journal) that Libby was not the “real” leaker reminding them that Libby did leak Valerie Plame’s identity as a CIA officer and, although his efforts failed, “an incompetent leak is still a leak.”

Meanwhile, JustOneMinute disembowels the NYT's Neil Lewis’ tenacious factual deficiency that Libby had nothing to do with the leak noting that people “following this case will find the actual testimony baffling if the Times is their source of basic information.” Also, don’t forget to weigh in on his poll of which witness you would most like to see testify.

Finally, in the quiet of yesterday’s recess, while the news media scrambles to fact-check, James Joyner’s attention wanders from trial minutia to the Dallas Cowboys. Back to business this morning, Joyner liveblogs Judge Walton’s instructions about the process overall and regarding Valerie Plame specifically.

Don’t know why I’ve been so enthralled with the president’s weekly spew-fest radio address lately, but the latest installment was another doozy. Maybe Team Bush is genuine about reaching out to Democrat’s on a pet issue or maybe all the new polls are starting to freak them out. Either way, George Bush weighing in on health care reform is a bit like a Sumo wrestler entering a limbo contest. Honestly, if I lived to the outer marker of my insurance carrier’s actuary-approved 95% confidence level aggregated lifespan predictor, I couldn’t imagine someone less qualified or trustworthy to mess with a system already deep in the throes of failure. Welcome to Pottersville nabs it better than I ever will:

On the radio, Mr. Bush suggested that we should “treat health insurance more like home ownership.” He went on to say that “the current tax code encourages home ownership by allowing you to deduct the interest on your mortgage from your taxes. We can reform the tax code, so that it provides a similar incentive for you to buy health insurance.”

Wow. Those are the words of someone with no sense of what it’s like to be uninsured.

Going without health insurance isn’t like deciding to rent an apartment instead of buying a house. It’s a terrifying experience, which most people endure only if they have no alternative. The uninsured don’t need an “incentive” to buy insurance; they need something that makes getting insurance possible.

Anyone else hearing echoes of Poppa Bush stammering to guess the price of milk? This is a family who rode limousines during the Great Depression being advised by a Washingtonian power-elite who are themselves beholden to corporate interests intent on eradicating employer-based insurance. Not that I don’t have my own myriad problems with healthcare in this country, but every word, every action, every privileged smirk from this administration betrays disdain for the disadvantaged souls they purport to assist. And to be honest, I seriously doubt anyone among this oblivious cabal is even minimally qualified to meddle with a system in which they have a clear conflict of interest.

Noting the pervasive criticism of the MSM among the blogosphere, Pachacutec offers a broad summary of mainstream journalism’s criticism of the criticism. Be sure to read on for an exceptional discussion of blogger/journalist complimentarity and to answer the question, “How would you feel about someone showing up at your place of work to do more or less what you do, for free?”

On the other side, MaineWebReport questions David Ho’s recent article portraying Libby bloggers as being in the throes of an identity crisis and painting a “questionable image” of the MBA’s organizational efforts. Describing Ho’s ilk as “the spoiled sibling forced to share attention” he notes the inevitability of bias permeating a writer’s work but that it is “unnatural … when these same writers try to pretend it isn’t occurring, while at the same time chastising this mystery beast of a lawsuit-addled blogosphere.”

As the jury pool (finally) reaches critical mass, TalkLeft ponders the wisdom of allowing someone with personal connections to the case to sit on the jury.

TAP Online sets out to correct a central misconception floated around conservative circles (including the Wall Street Journal) that Libby was not the “real” leaker reminding them that Libby did leak Valerie Plame’s identity as a CIA officer and, although his efforts failed, “an incompetent leak is still a leak.”

Meanwhile, JustOneMinute disembowels the NYT's Neil Lewis’ tenacious factual deficiency that Libby had nothing to do with the leak noting that people “following this case will find the actual testimony baffling if the Times is their source of basic information.” Also, don’t forget to weigh in on his poll of which witness you would most like to see testify.

Finally, in the quiet of yesterday’s recess, while the news media scrambles to fact-check, James Joyner’s attention wanders from trial minutia to the Dallas Cowboys. Back to business this morning, Joyner liveblogs Judge Walton’s instructions about the process overall and regarding Valerie Plame specifically.

The whole spectacle is kind of surreal – could FOX News really not find someone to sit in rebuttal? Or have they finally decided that their own moderator is the only radically conservative voice necessary? Either way, the rest of the party needs to take a cue from Biden on how to handle yourself in the belly of the beast: 

WALLACE: "Sen. Biden, I know this is not your intent, but in fact, wouldn't your resolution send a message that would embolden our enemies and discourage our troops in the field?"

BIDEN: "Absolutely not. And not only does Carl Levin and Joe Biden and Senator Hagel and Senator Snowe but the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Iraqi Study Group, every single person out there that is of any consequence thinks, knows the Vice President doesn't know what he's talking about. I can't be more blunt than that. He is yet to be right one single time on Iraq. Name me one single time he's been correct. It's about time we stop listening to that ideological rhetoric and Bin Laden and the rest. Bin Laden isn't the issue here, but Bin Laden will become the issue. The issue is there's a civil war, Chris…"

As usual, TPM can be counted upon to deliver tomorrow’s GOP scandal today: 

When Duke Cunningham went down in one of the largest congressional bribery scandals in history, he tried to take his main bribers with him: Mitchell Wade, who quickly confessed to the charge and has been cooperating with authorities; and Brent Wilkes, who's rebuffed Duke's accusation and maintained a stony silence to the Feds. 

Now, the Wall Street Journal says that federal prosecutors are under orders to deliver a grand jury indictment against Wilkes by Feb. 15. 

A note of caution: a Wilkes indictment has been rumored for months. But this has a ring of truth to it. Why? Because according to WSJ the order comes directly from just-ousted U.S. Attorney Carol Lam, who's been overseeing the case -- and who gave the order to take Wilkes down before she leaves on -- you guessed it -- February 15. 

We’ll see how this pans out, but between the Libby trial and a fresh indictment, February is starting to look interesting for the GOP.

With voir dire on weekend hiatus, David Shuster over at Hardblogger recaps some highlights and suggests Fitzgerald may be hinting at some aggressive cross-examination for the vice-president.

MBA president, Robert Cox, offers a more restrained perspective on the rejection process comparing the “jurors don’t like Cheney” meme to a media-wide game of telephone tag.

James Joyner contextualizes CNN’s coverage of the “blogging in the court” story (video included) and explains what we can expect bloggers to add to a process already covered by professional journalists. Also, as voir dire barrels into a new week, Joyner opines that the defense team appears less interested in facts than in politics.

During a quiet moment at firedoglake, Pachacutec and emptywheel stop by for a visit and help throw together some transcript-esque play-by-play for today’s episode of Survivor: Jury Island.

From the Desk of Patrick J. Fitzgerald muses on an ironic historical juxtaposition surrounding the use of the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse as the venue for a trial so intertwined with corruption.

Jeralyn from TalkLeft takes a break from voir dire commentary and imparts some perspective on what Team Libby’s strategic plan may be for the vital opening arguments.

Contributing at the Daily Kos, emptywheel notices a curious discrepancy in Libby’s denial that may hint at an admission to leaking something classified to Novak about Wilson. Was the mainstream media was too hasty in swallowing Armitage as the source?

Stepping over to firedoglake, emptywheel pens an eviscerating indictment (pun intended) of the way Libby’s memory defense highlights his failures on national security. Prepare for a ruckus stroll down memory lane with all the joy of open-mouth gum surgery.

Finally, enjoying some caffeine at TPM Café, Todd Gitlin shoots a quick “get a clue” aide memoire to the Wall Street Journal.

Trial blogger Pachacutec examines the voir dire process through a tale of two potential jurors noting that although the process will likely result in a fair trial, “watching a jury be selected feels quite a lot like viewing the production of sausage.” Pachacutec also muses on his role in blazing a new “Crashing the Gate” trail, the contrast between bloggers and journalists, and the blogosphere’s historical inevitability as a significant element of modern media. Finally, don’t forget to check out some of his live coverage from the past few days.

Also from firedoglake, Christy Hardin Smith recaps Libby news from the last few days and cautions witnesses that “any attempt to lie stands out like a sore thumb — every bead of sweat, every twitch, every blink, every smirky mouth movement … everything … the jury will see all of it.”

TPM has a sampling (courtesy of the AP) of some questions that Libby’s legal team would like put to potential jurors. Shorter version – “Cheney: Prince or Player?”

Digby describes the blogger coverage of the Libby trial as the “internet equivalent of all those OJ shows on the cablers, except smart and literate” and offers suggestions for getting yourself edu-ma-cated on the Libby trial.

John Amato of Crooks and Liars posits that not only was Plame’s outing Cheney’s idea from the beginning, but that it seems Fitzgerald is also starting to believe it.

Truthout reports on the continuing travails of Libby’s defense team, in a city where Democrats hold an 8:1 majority, to locate someone, anyone, anywhere who trusts Team Cheney enough to serve on the jury. Also, looking for the Plamegate timeline in 4,000 words or less? How about a preview of Fitzgerald’s case?

Feel like a good giggle? Over at the Huffington Post, Mary Kaplan imagines the sort of forthright responses that might get you booted from the jury pool.

Jeralyn at Talkleft asks the question apparently forgotten within the mainstream media – Who got immunity in the Libby trial?

Michigan Liberal reflects on the interaction between bloggers and journalists as “a wariness and a grudging respect, like that between professional and amateur athletes.”

And finally, Juan Cole explores Libby’s connection to the wider argument for impeaching Dick Cheney.

Apologies for the last post, it was for the benefit of introducing myself to the MBA feed.  Allow me to make it up to you with the following public service announcement for personal hygiene: