From just their work so far Scooter Libby’s lawyers strike me as brilliant. This is further proof of that:

“WASHINGTON –Former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby wants a memory expert to explain how he — and prosecution witnesses — may have different recollections of their conversations about a CIA officer’s identity.

In a court filing Monday, defense lawyers said Libby has a right to present testimony from Robert A. Bjork, chairman of the psychology department at the University of California at Los Angeles, to correct misperceptions that jurors may have about the reliability of memory.

Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, faces trial in January for lying to FBI agents and a federal grand jury about how he learned and what he subsequently told reporters about then-CIA officer Valerie Plame in 2003.

The crux of Libby’s defense will be that he was too preoccupied with national security “matters of life and death” and that he could have easily confused “snippets of conversations” he had with reporters from Time magazine, NBC and the New York Times.

The court filing confirms that Libby’s lawyers want to try to force a jury into deciding whose memories of those conversations are accurate — Libby’s or the three reporters.”

Ok, this filing be a bit of a stretch, yet it’s brilliant because if the judge allows it - and its a big if - then it brings the real basis of this mockery of a charge to the front .

To wit: Libby’s word vs. the reporters involved in the matter.

That’s all they’ve got is a “He said, they said, so what they said doesn’t match what he said so he must be lying” case in the first place. Even if the judge doesn’t allow the additional testimony Libby’s lawyers should find other ways to keep this the theme.

Note the “NBC” referencing “Little Russ” Tim Russert whose story has always been on a shakey if not frigging unbelievable foundation. Keep that script polish there Russ!