guess they shoulda thought about that BEFORE they started this BOOOGUS Witch hunt!!! I can't find a reliable location for source documents, such as the CIA affidavit referenced here. Any leads on such a location would be much appreciated.
CIA is definitely trying to cover up somthing - maybe that the leaker is within the CIA?
The CIA is immediately using the "Washington Monument" defense. i.e there's something they don't like, so they pick the highest profile item and say they can't do it.
If Libby was charged with spying, or treason, maybe even if he was charged with leaking classified information, I would say that the government could prosecute while withholding information.
but he's charged with what? Perjury, obstruction of justice? If they say he lied, he's damn well entitled to any information that could show that he wasn't.
This was a fake prosecution to begin with, and if the judge had any integrity he would throw it out.
Yeah. They've got dozens of operations against the administration that are being imperiled by Libby.
Sorry, it doesn't fly. Libby cannot be charged with something and then denied the alibis he needs to prove his innocence by when they are the VERY SUBJECT of the investigation itself.
All Libby has to do is mention Edwin Wilson.
Presumably the CIA had enough evidence to make a referral to the Justice Department. Let's just start with that, and get the people who put the referral together to appear in court under oath.
U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton ... hasn't ruled on Libby's request for copies of 275 daily briefings from May 6, 2003, through March 24, 2004. ...It would take only three months for the CIA to prepare written summaries of topics presented during all the morning briefings during that period, Dorn said. Such summaries wouldn't be adequate for Libby's defense, his lawyers said today.
``Such summaries will likely not contain the information Mr. Libby needs to refresh his recollection and to explain to the jury his state of mind,'' they said.
When was he charged with lying to the FBI? I thought it was just the grand jury? No?
Translation: Some people in the CIA don't want their rogue operations against the Bush Administration exposed.
Friggin' duh.
This goes back to the key question: Why in the world was there an investigation into mentioning the name of an "operative" at the CIA?
I never knew this was a crime.
Didn't the CIA start all of this by referring the so called leak by Novak to the Justice Dept? Seems to me they've got no one to blame but themselves. They made a referral over a non-issue, and can now accept the consequences.
There is an inherent conflict when an intel agency goes who works for the executive wants to prosecute the right-hand-man of the executive they work for.
It is relevant that Libby found himself defending the executive from attacks by the CIA itself, it is relevant that the CIA itself waged a war against the executive by means of targeted leaks. It is now prosecuting a member of the very same executive it has tried to undermine.
To prosecute a leak that was intended to counter CIA leaks, without first cleaning house at the CIA, is to take sides in an institutional mutiny.
guess they shoulda thought about that BEFORE they started this BOOOGUS Witch hunt!!!The CIA prefers to divulge information through legitimate means such as selective leaks to the press, not through bogus channels such as court orders. (sarcasm)
Libby should do well; he has Wen Ho Lee's lawyer defending him.
I am still flabbergasted that this thing is starting in 2007.
Why don't they just gather up a few ex-Ambasadors like they did with Wilson and have them handle the extra work?