After reading through the 29 page response filed by Scooter Libby’s attorneys this week, I uncovered something I found of interest.

The response gives us a look into who may be called to the witness stand and what role their testimony could play.

Firs up is Marc Grossman, former Under Secretary of Political Affairs. Grossman’s involvement in the case is of no surprise to anyone following it. We have known for quiet sometime that he allegedly told Scooter Libby about Valerie Plame. Grossman also refused to answer this allegation during the grand jury investigation.

Up next is former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. The defense is questioning rather Ari learned about Plame’s identity from someone at the State Department or at the CIA. The response also highlights that night aboard Air Force One when the secret memo containing Plame’s identity was allegedly passed around:

Press accounts suggest that Mr. Fleischer may have learned about Ms. Wilson during his trip to Africa after seeing it in a classified report sent to Mr. Powell on Air Force One and then disclosed this information to reporters.

Here is the most interesting part of the filing involving Ari Fleischer

Finally, the defense also seeks documents that will shed light on the Administration’s response to criticism from Mr. Wilson. The government questioned Mr. Libby about this topic at length in the grand jury, and it put it at issue in the indictment and with its proposed use of the NIE. As the White House press secretary, Mr. Fleischer likely played a key role in orchestrating and implementing the Administration’s strategy for rebutting Mr. Wilson’s claims. Documents from his files – or from anywhere in the White House – that relate to this subject must be produced pursuant to Rule 16.

What is interesting about that is the defense is now making this out as a big orchestrated plan to discredit Joe Wilson. This is the first time I have seen anything where the defense is alleging to such activities in the White House. Makes this sound more like a case of collusion to me.

Now we get to the big one – Karl Rove. This is the man who we all thought would be indicted by now (even though he is not out of the woods yet).

Senior White House advisor Karl Rove figures prominently in the government’s indictment. He allegedly spoke both to Mr. Novak and Mr. Libby about Ms. Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA. Accordingly, the government’s statement that it does not presently intend to call Mr. Rove does not diminish his importance in this case.

The defense is likely to call Mr. Rove to provide testimony regarding Mr. Libby’s conversations with Mr. Rove concerning reporters’ inquiries about Ms. Wilson, as expressly discussed in the indictment. (Indictment, Count One, at ¶ 21.) Documents from Mr. Rove’s files about the subjects outlined in the indictment are discoverable pursuant to Rule 16 because without them the defense cannot effectively prepare for Mr. Rove’s examination. As discussed above, Rule 16 compels disclosure of such documents even if Mr. Rove remains a subject of a continuing grand jury investigation.

I still have a sneaking suspicion that Rove struck a deal with Fitzgerald to stay out of trouble on this. His role has been key in the entire thing and he should have been indicted. Of course Fitzgerald very well could still be using him in the investigation and then slap an indictment on him at the end.

The Boston Globe is reporting today also that the filing proves a the defense is going to take a stronger look at the administration’s use of prewar intelligence.

Lawyers for former vice presidential aide I. Lewis ”Scooter” Libby are citing prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald’s disclosure last week that President Bush had authorized Libby to leak sensitive Iraqi intelligence as justification for a request to obtain thousands of documents that could shed new light on the administration’s use of prewar intelligence.

This is key to the entire case. Actually this is what the case is about. What I am wondering now is if Colin Powell will be called to testify. Since he has been publicly saying he knew the Niger claim was false, it would seem he could shed even more light on the case.

For a more in-depth legal analysis of this (since I am by no means an attorney lol), check out Christy’s entry and also Jeralyn’s. If you would like to read the response, I do have it available here (PDF File).