Libby has never claimed that Cheney encouraged him to disclose information about Plame to the media. ...Finally, the new information indicates that Libby is likely to pursue a defense during his trial that he was broadly "authorized" by Cheney and other "superiors" to defend the Bush administration in making the case to go to war. Libby does not, however, appear to be claiming that he was acting specifically on Cheney's behalf in disclosing information about Plame to the press.
Note too, the article leads the reader to think in terms of "this is a leak case." But it's not. The charges against Libby are that he deliberately mislead investigators.
The thrust of the article in that regard is that Libby's defense team wants to show that Libby was pressed with bigger fish than affair de Plame, and therefore forgot that he knew for a fact that Plame worked for the CIA when he talked with investigators.
Excellent observation.
At this time we do not intend to offer any evidence of "other crimes" pursuant to Rule 404(b). As we discussed during our telephone conversation, Mr. Libby testified in the grand jury that he had contact with reporters in which he disclosed the content of the National Intelligence Estimate ("NIE") to such reporters in the course of his interaction with reporters in June and July 2003 (and caused at least one other government official to discuss the NIE with the media in July 2003). We also note that it is our understanding that Mr. Libby testified that he was authorized to disclose information about the NIE to the press by his superiors. We expect that such conduct will be the subject of proof at trial in that we intend to introduce Libby's grand jury transcript in evidence and Mr. Libby has testified that the purpose of his July 8 meeting with Ms. Miller was to transmit information concerning the NIE. Our anticipated basis for offering such evidence is that such facts are inextricably intertwined with the narrative of the events of spring 2003, as Libby's testimony itself makes plain. At this time, we do not intend to offer the evidence pursuant to Rule 404(b).I don't understand what this means "We also note that it is our understanding that Mr. Libby testified". Weren't they listening to his testimony?
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.
This shit is much ado about nothing. Legal ranglings.