Court begins a little later than usual — just after 10:30. Judge Walton begins by discussing prosecution’s request to play video clips of White House spokesman Scott McClellan’s comments exonerating Karl Rove in the Plame leak — but not Scooter Libby. Walton says there is no evidence that Libby watched them, and therefore should not be entered into evidence. He doesn’t want the jury to speculate that Libby had specific knowledge of what McClellan said to the press.

Fitzgerald argues that Libby must have been aware of it, since his lawyer argued in an opening statement that Libby was being scapegoated and sacrificed by White House officials to protect political adviser Karl Rove. Walton says we have no idea what Libby’s “basis of knowledge” was for thinking he was being scapegoated, and that there is no evidence that he had seen either the video clips of McClellan speaking. “I’m just not going to allow it,” the judge says.

The transcripts of same, however, may be another matter. The point is that Libby was aware of McClellan’s comments, and then asked his boss, Vice President Dick Cheney, to pressure McClellan to publicly clear Libby as well. Cheney did so, and McClellan eventually followed orders and commented before the press on the ongoing criminal investigation and said that Libby too was blame-free.

Prosecution’s position is that McClellan was acting as Libby’s ‘agent.’ “He wanted McLellan to say these things, and he did,” says Fitzgerald. “So these statements become Libby’s statements.” Libby was suggesting ‘talking points’ to McClellan — even going so far as to write in ‘McClellan’s voice.’

“The statements rebut the position that Libby was under the White House’s bus,” says Fitzgerald.

“When you’ve got the press secretary to the President speaking on behalf of Libby,” notes Judge Walton, “That, it seems to me, would undermine the suggestion that there was in fact this effort to sacrifice Mr. Libby to protect Mr. Rove.”

The prosecution says that the government has claimed Libby’s motive in lying was his fear of losing his job. Defense says no — he simply did not want to be scapegoated and sacrificed to save Rove.

“Going to the Vice President was the act of an innocent man,” says defense attorney Ted Wells.

Fitzgerald says “the central argument of the case” is that Libby learned classified information from official sources and then illegally leaked it to reporters. Libby then “switched stories” to say he got the information from reporters instead of official sources — his motive was to switch his sources from officials to news reporters. “That is the cleanest way to take himself off the hook,” notes Fitzgerald.

A video clip of McClellan is then played – not for the jury, of course. Reporters raise questions about the “president’s silence” over the Plame leak.

“No one wants to get to the bottom of this matter more than the President of the United States,” says McClellan in the clip. “If someone in this Administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this Administration,” he adds.

Judge Walton says he may allow this portion of the video to be played for the jury — but perhaps only that. He says the “tone” of the reporters’ questions indicate they have doubts about the credibility of McClellan — and he wants to avoid jurors being exposed to that, as it may prejudice them.

Wells says that when Libby first went to McClellan and asked him to exonerate him publicly as he had Karl Rove, McClellan “blew him off.” Libby subsequently went to the Vice President ands asked him to have McLellan clear him. “McClellan was NOT Libby’s agent,” concludes Wells. “McClellan had blown him off!”

Another clip is played that shows McClellan assuring reports that he had spoken to Rove, Libby and one other Administration official (Eliot Abrams) and “They assured me they were not involved in the leaking of classified information.”

Four days later, Libby told the FBI he had learned of Plame’s identity form reporters—and not from other officials. Therefore he was not guilty of leaking classified information—a lie, according to the prosecution.

“Nothing could be more probative of his state of mind,” concludes Fitzgerald. “This is the guts of our case—that it was a knowing and intentional lie.”

The court recesses.