Cbdoldt, you noticed the exact same parts of the article I did: the body of the text states that there was no testimony indicating Cheney authorized anything regarding the leaking of Plame's background, but Waas buries this information in such a way that the casual reader would not notice this and would go away with a false impression. Also, Waas is alleging to report on what is supposedly sealed grand jury testimony, which Libby is not free to comment on to confirm or refute. I would like to see an indictment of each and every reporter and editor who has aided and abetted the flagrant breaking of the law by the continuous leaking of grand jury testimony in this investigation, as well as impeachment proceedings against Fitzgerald himself, because it has become very clear after months and months of chronic leaks that he is allowing these leaks to flow from his office unchecked in order to influence public opinion against the accused. This is a flagrant abuse of Fitzgerald's office and a gross disregard of Libby's rights.
Libby is perfectly free to confirm or refute his own testimony before the GJ. It's the jurors who are sworn to secrecy, not the witnesses.
I would like to see an indictment of each and every reporter and editor who has aided and abetted the flagrant breaking of the law by the continuous leaking of grand jury testimony in this investigation, as well as impeachment proceedings against Fitzgerald himself ...
I don't know what criminal laws were broken by publication. Libby might have a defamation suit, but only if the report is false and the publisher knew it was false and published it as true, anyway.
I think he made this up by twisting information in Fitz' affidavit in which he says Libby testified he t=was tasked to explain portions of the NIE to Miller and was concentrating on that part of the conversation and not the fact that Plame was in the agency. Beginning in spring of 2003 portions of the NIE were declassified and both Tenet and Rice spoke to reporters from time to time about the non-classified portions.
On the other hand there was no Fitzmas and Cinco de NSA and Cinco de Abramoff have been cancelled so expect more and more feverish conspiracy theories to surface. Last week's was a twisted version of the problem with archiving the emails which quickly morphed into the notion that the WH was destroying evidence. Remember?