I expect Libby's lawyers may appeal. This story and another say that all the confidential material will be redacted, or that the briefings will be summarized. I'm not sure why Libby should settle for that. I would imagine that he has a higher security clearance than Fitzgerald, on a need to know basis.
Also, FoxNews just reported the story on air.
I imagine one of the briefings discusses Joe Wilson and how he was selected to go on his trip...That briefing should contain info about Plames official status I would imagine. Wouldn't it be something if the CIA's briefing stated she wasn't a NOC?
Libby needs to know the gist of the intelligence briefings to put on a "preoccupation defense," the judge said. But, he said, the former White House aide should be able to refresh his memory by reviewing generalized versions of the intelligence briefings. ...I think Libby's counsel agreed to something on the order of summaries. But the CIA countered, saying that even providing a list of "issues of the day" will illuminate the nature of WH operations in enough detail to compromise security."It is inconceivable that the defendant's memory of matters of significance to him have totally vanished," Walton wrote.
This ruling puts the WH in a tough spot. Does it prosecute false testimony in a leak case, or let it go? Letting it go will raise a charge of covering up for Libby, or "sham prosecution," inasmuch as even if there WAS a leak, the leaker can get off by the same mechanism used here.
If the WH is trying to put heat on CIA for acting the part of an ass (e.g., claiming disclosure of covert agent when there wasn't, in order to cover for its inept handling of Wilson and Plame in the first place), perhaps it is willing to risk whatever damage results from disclosing the PDB punch list.
I figured that whichever way Walton ruled, the ruling would be appealed. In this case, I think it's up to Fitz and the administration to choose to appeal the order, or comply with Walton's order, or withdraw the charge.