U.S. Lawyers: Libby May Have Disclosed Iraq Secrets

The New York Sun ^ | November 17, 2006 | By JOSH GERSTEIN

[Laverne]

A former White House aide, I. Lewis Libby, may have disclosed conclusions from a highly classified government report on Iraq to journalists before the report was declassified by President Bush, federal prosecutors said in a new court filing.

snip....

On Monday, Judge Walton ruled that the government was being too stingy in crafting descriptions that jurors could be shown of the classified security matters Mr. Libby handled. However, the judge withdrew that ruling yesterday, citing a problem with its legal rationale. Mr. Libby's trial is set to begin in January.

[Laverne]

Scooter Ping

[Laverne]

However, the judge withdrew that ruling yesterday, citing a problem with its legal rationale.

Hmmmmmmm, this is an interesting tid bit.

[mewzilla]

Shades of Ronnie Earle. If your first indictment doesn't succeed, indict, indict again.

[mewzilla]

However, the judge withdrew that ruling yesterday, citing a problem with its legal rationale.

LOL.

Snort.

[FLOutdoorsman]

drip..drip..drip..convict in the media..drip..drip

[PeteB570]

Interesting that the MSM has no problem with headlines of

"In Secret Testimony this afternoon on the Hill,revealed by an anonymous source"

[piasa]

Here they go again with the Feith / NIE thing...

[Roccus]

Would that have been legal to do without the permission of the NY Times???

[Paladin2]

I want to see Leaky Leahy frog marched off Capitol Hill.

[Peach]

I thought the left applauded disclosure of national security secrets?

[AmericaUnited]

So the judge in effect said "Just ignore what I said previously because I was an idiot ("What on earth was I thinking") ..."

What a farse this whole thing is.

[Brilliant]

"May have?"


I thought the standard was "beyond a reasonable doubt."

[AppyPappy]

I don't think the Democrats want to start a fight on leakers

[ABG(anybody but Gore)]

This is Fitz going for a Monica. He knows he's screwed on the Plame incident so he's looking to book somebody, anybody, in the Bush Administration.

[Bahbah]

The judge had problems with his own legal rationale?

[snowrip]

However, the judge withdrew that ruling yesterday, citing a problem with its legal rationale.

Would that be the rationale of STILL attempting to prosecute Libby? Or would that be the rationale of still trying to prosecute Libby AFTER THE NY TIMES HAS DONE THE SAME THING A DOZEN TIMES?

[Laverne]

That is how I read it. This whole thing is beyond bizzare. The judge rules that Fitzy has to give more classified info to Team Libby, then rules his ruling was mistaken??? And Fitzy now trying to change the focus from lieing to "may have" revealed classified info from the NIE. I wish the whole thing would just go away. Free Scooter!!!

[kittymyrib]

LOL...the NYT does this every other week and no one has ever been punished for it. It looks like they are really reaching to get Libby in this utterly discredited fiasco.

[AndyJackson]

This is a hell of a quibble when we don't even know what the meaning of "is" is.