Noting the litany of “very important things” Team Libby will use in their memory defense,” emptywheel sees a hackneyed charade that, alongside chats with Tom Cruise, will pan out as disingenuous in the court of public opinion. Read on for an interesting discussion of the Grenier CIA OIG interview.

With the first week of witnesses drawing to a close, BooMan puts the last two days of testimony in context through a review of the timeline since 2003.

AntiWar.com notes that although Libby may be in the defendant’s chair, we are witnessing nothing less than the trial of Dick Cheney. Does this augur the final collapse of the War Party?

Over at C&L, John Amato questions the veracity of Team Libby’s dismissal of the “infamous Russert phone call.”

BTC News warns everyone not to get too carried away by Rove’s introduction as the villain behind Libby’s ultimate indictment. Despite Bush’s pledge to fire anyone involved, if the 2006 electoral “thumpin’” wasn’t enough to dislodge Rove, then practically nothing will.

While acknowledging the public significance of the ‘protecting Rove’ defense, TAP describes its legal significance as only a minor facet of the wider defense.

Murray Waas at Whatever Already! points to claims from the OVP that Libby was being scapegoated as the most significant disclosure thus far in providing further evidence of schisms within the Bush administration.

Finally, Delilah Boyd isn’t holding back on her take of the mainstream media trial coverage. Seriously Delilah, we’re tired of this ambiguous rhetoric - tell us how you really feel!