Judge Says Libby Can See Bush Briefings

Associated Press - Forbes ^ | March 10, 2006 | TONI LOCY

[beyond the sea]

If Fitzy was smart he would realize he can't win this case so this is his ticket out. Take it Fitzy!

Now would be about as good a time as any if that were his intent or desire.

[beyond the sea]

I don't see Fitzy wanting this on TV.

No Fitz wouldn't at all, but that is one very hilarious concept!

Catherine Crier could begin coverage after their show on new insights into the murder of the famous 1920's Hollywood director, William Desmond Taylor.

[Just mythoughts]

BUMP!!!

[Freedom is eternally right]

Found number 21 to be rather interesting

21 There has been no motion filed seeking to compel the production of the defendant's daily calendar.

[Natchez Hawk]

The indictment won't be thrown out--appeals, appeals, appeals.
By the time they hash out the ground rules, it will be about December of 2008. Checkmate is a presedential pardon.

[Eagleami]

"It is inconceivable that the defendant's memory of matters of significance to him have totally vanished," Walton wrote.

I would assume Libby reviewed his notes and is requesting only specific dates as observed in Post 41 to be of significance. In Post 46, Libby's concerns seem to revolve around information he requested during those times. This is where the charges of lying to the FBI come in? Sounds like he may have been seeking info regarding Plame and the Wilson trip but went about it in a roundabout manner? I'm beginning to wonder if Libby was not a lone soldier?

I haven't been following the case that closely and so please don't smack me if this is way off base. Perhaps, someone with better knowledge can sum it up for me.

[Cboldt]

I would assume Libby reviewed his notes and is requesting only specific dates as observed in Post 41 to be of significance.

Libby had requested both his and VP Cheney's PDB's for the dates from May 6, 2003 to March 24, 2004. In this ruling, Judge Walton said Libby is entitled to summaries for only the following periods (notes below each set of date describe the activity as stated in the indictment):

June 7 to July 14, 2003

Paragraphs 5 through 24 of the indictment recites much activity in this time frame, and indeed, the investigation revolves around events in this time frame. According to the indictment, the events include Libby's meetings and discussions with CIA relating to Wilson and Plame, and his making specific inquiries and obtaining personal briefings from the CIA along those lines. This time frame also captures the Novak article and Libby's meetings with Miller, Russert and Cooper.

Oct. 12-16, 2003 (5 days - Sun/Thu)
Nov. 24-28, 2003 (5 days - Mon/Fri)

Paragraph 26 of the indictment says, "LIBBY was interviewed by Special Agents of the FBI on or about October 14 and November 26, 2003, each time in the presence of his counsel."

March 3-7, 2004 (5 days - Wed/Sun)
March 22-26, 2004 (5 days - Mon/Fri)

Paragraph 30 of the indictment says, "On or about March 5 and March 24, 2004, LIBBY testified before Grand Jury 03-3."

Sounds like he may have been seeking info regarding Plame and the Wilson trip but went about it in a roundabout manner?

The indictment alleges he went for the Plame information in a focused and direct manner. And then in testimony to investigators and the grand jury, the indictment repeatedly charges, "LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA."

Libby's preoccupation defense is that he was NOT well aware of that, because he was preoccupied.

[Eagleami]

Thanks kindly for the recap, especially the dates and the reasoning behind it. It certainly clears up any confusion I may have entertained.

[bybybill]

This will be Fitzgerald`s way out

[LonghornFreeper]

Since when does a jumped up judge get to jack with national security level information and it's distribution?

Since the Bill of Rights gave any citizen who is on trial the right to "be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor".

The White House could refuse, but then the charges must be dropped. They can't say "Even though there is evidence that might be used to exonerate you, it is classified, so too bad, you go to jail."