You Oughta Know
Team Libby does not argue the publication of the letters is prejudicial to Libby. Do they even have standing to contest the release of the letters to the media (which includes bloggers in this case) based on privacy rights of those not their clients….or on behalf of future defendants who likewise are not their clients? I don't think so.
We, the public, do have a very big interest in seeing the letters and knowing who wrote them. Libby has managed to hide most of the names of the people who are paying for his defense. Since he has, by all accounts, served as the perfect firewall, we deserve to know whether those directly benefiting from Libby's lies are footing the bill to defend him. While Judge Walton may not be able to change the laws surrounding disclosure of legal defense funds, I hope he understands that seeing these letters allow us to see precisely who is behind Libby's defense.
The Libby Defense Fund has never been forthcoming about who their contributors were and journalists never really bothered to ask. During the trial it became evident that Wells and Jeffress were not going to defend their client by implicating Dick Cheney or George Bush, and thus questions were raised (though never answered) about who, exactly, they were being paid to defend. Nonethelelss, Jeralyn is right — Jefress can't really assert the privacy rights of individuals he doesn't techincally represent.
It seems as if Jefress became momentarily confused about the identities of his official and unofficial clients. I guess in the end the kabuki just got too tough to sustain.