LIBBY, PLAME, AND THE NIE. The defense rested in the Scooter Libby trial yesterday, after offering a very brief case and without, of course, calling either Libby himself or Vice President Cheney. Was this a sign of the defense’s confidence? Or a sign it believed Libby’s odds on appeal were better than at trial, and that therefore it was better to avoid the political damage that may have been caused by Libby and Cheney’s cross-examinations?

Byron York makes the argument from strength today, suggesting that the defense is hoping that the jury will take away a negative impression of prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald after listening to eight hours of tapes of him questioning Libby before the grand jury back in March 2004. In the course of illustrating this claim, York makes an important error:

Ann Friedman is a columnist for New York magazine’s website and for the Columbia Journalism Review. She also makes pie charts for The Hairpin and Los Angeles magazine. Her work has appeared in ELLE, Esquire, Newsweek, The Observer, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and many other outlets. She lives in Los Angeles, but travels so often the best place to find her is online at annfriedman.com. Follow @annfriedman