Wilson asked a federal judge Wednesday not to force him to testify in the CIA leak case

Wilson Challenges Subpoena in CIA Case
E-MailPrint Save

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: December 20, 2006
Filed at 10:18 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former ambassador Joseph Wilson asked a federal judge Wednesday not to force him to testify in the CIA leak case and accused former White House aide I. Lewis ''Scooter'' Libby of trying to harass him on the witness stand.

Libby, who faces perjury and obstruction charges, subpoenaed Wilson as a defense witness this month. Libby's attorney, William Jeffress, said in court Tuesday that was a precautionary move and he did not expect to put Wilson on the stand.

.............

''Mr. Libby should not be permitted to compel Mr. Wilson's testimony at trial either for the purpose of harassing Mr. Wilson or to gain an advantage in the civil case,'' Wilson's attorneys wrote.

While Wilson and Plame are at the center of the CIA leak scandal, Wilson is a minor figure in Libby's perjury trial. U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton has sought to keep much of the back story of the leak out of the case.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-CIA-Leak.html

The Wilson's attorneys are going to call on everyone and their dog to testify in the civil trial and they're going to expect compliance. He should take the stand. If the questioning isn't relevant, let the prosecutor and judge take care of it.

The attempt by the Libby legal team to distract attention from the central issues of the trial should get zero support. The transcripts from the May 5 pre-trial hearing document that Judge Walton does not intend to allow the defense to make this a trial about Wilson's trip to Niger. I would suggest that you can not name a single issue relevant to this trial that Wilson's testifying could add anything of value to.

I wouldn't put anything past Libby's lawyers.

anything to try to distract the jury's attention from the only thing that is at issue in the trial: the crimes Scooter is charged with.

In a civil suit, one must prove harm. In a criminal case, the harm is explicit in the charge. No harm needs to be proved, therefore the witness list, and subsequent compliance are two completely different things. Your comparison makes no sense.
The Professor

Wilson has filed a civil suit.

Name a single issue that he can contribute to in the criminal case?

Wilson does not have any info relevant to the case, meaning what Libby is actually on trial for. That is perjury and OOJ. He had nothing to do with, nor was he present when LIbby lied to a GJ and the FBI. And he wasn't on the phone, or present when Libby obstructed

Wilson has no first-hand information that sheds a ray of light on Libby's activities or state of mind. He has nothing to add to the criminal trial.

I am surprised at the level of ignorance regarding this. People should, at the very least, read the May 5 transcript.

first this seems like a little pre-trial publicity. Libby's attorney's stated that it was a precautionary move. Sounds more like they figured that Wilson would try to squash the subpoena which makes Wilson look like he's got something to hide. That makes good PR for Team Libby.

Second, I don't think Judge Walton is going to give Team Libby the latitude they think they might get if they do put him on the stand. Fitz knows that Wilson and his wife aren't the issue here. I can just imagine Fitz objecting to every question asked by Team Libby and having all his objections upheld. This would do nothing but make Libby and his defense look like desperate.