Libby is not charged with revealing the identity of Valerie Plame, nor is he charged with any national security violations. Therefore, none of the documents he is asking for are at all relevant to the case against him. What he is charged with is lying to the Grand Jury/federal agents and obstructing justice. He lied about conversations with reporters and got caught lying. The only issues are: did he talk to reporters; and did he lie about having done so. All the national security documents in the world do not change those basic facts.

"protecting reporters from inquisitive lawyers"

I really don't see this as any kind of a legal problem. Reporters do no have a national shield law, despite the fact that they behave as if they do. Fox News went to court in Florida in order to prove that media -- including reporters -- have a legal right to lie to the public. They won. Has any other profession gone to court to solicit such a ruling? Have doctors or lawyers gone to court to sue for the right to lie to their patients or to their clients and call it a First Amendment right? Please tell me if they have..

In the meantime, since media people demanded the legal right to lie to the public, I see no reason why they should also be legally prevented from telling the truth in front of the courts. It may be the only way to get a reporter to tell the truth.

Of course they are going to pardon him. Seems to be no doubt of any kind. However, I doubt that they will do what you are suggesting and pardon him before the trial. My suspicion is that the trial will be put off for as long as possible, that appeals will be taken, etc. so that Bush can pardon Libby just before he leaves office.

... is the term for threatening to reveal state secrets in defending a criminal case. While I'm not alleging that's what's being done here, it's a well-known ploy in Washington.

As for whether Bush will pardon Libby, the question is not if (of course he will), or even when (my money is on Libby being pardoned in time to still work for Dick Cheney in this administration), but which "Democrat" will be used to provide moral support for it.

Yes, drag it along until after the impeachment...

Re: "...Teeing Up a Pardon"?, by Grieve, 1/23/06

Dear Editor,

I completely agree with Mr Grieve's writing. Pres. Ford pardoned Nixon, Bush will do the same. What Ford did was reprehensible at the time and we can now see that what he did has directly resulted in damage to the fabric of our American Democracy. Nixon should never have been allowed to 'slide'. Despite the fact that he resigned, Nixon should have been brought to trial for all the nation to see in full detail all the nepharious things he had done. No one is above the law not even the president nor 'all the presidents men'.

bobr900, Cleveland, Ohio

See my article that was at the top of the DKos Most Recommended Diaries yesterday: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/6/12248/27290

FITZ LETTER: Bush, Cheney Now Prosecution Targets?

by leveymg [Subscribe]

Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 10:24:08 AM PDT

In court papers published late last week, Patrick Fitzgerald revealed that his office has obtained at least one Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) that discusses the trip to Niger taken by Ambassador Joseph Wilson, the husband of Valerie Plame.

While it was previously known that Bush and Cheney had been interviewed by Fitzgerald about the outing of Plame, this is the first indication that the prosecution in the case has started to look into documentation that might answer the question of questions: "What did the President know, and when did he know it?"

MORE below . . .

Here's an exchange on that point in the comments string that followed:

[READER RESPONSE]

Did you read the article a couple of months ago about the new member of the defense team? Here is one version. This happened around Thanksgiving, I'd love your take on it. Libby hires expert in criminal law on national secrets

Anyway the new lawyer, John Cline is a CA lawyer and an expert in security cases, he was Wen Ho Lee's and Oliver North's attorney. The gist of the article is that, based on this attorney's prior court appearances, the strategy is to request everything. Cast a wide net asking for any classified materials they reasonably can. Then they create a roadblock to mounting a reasonable defense when the government denies the defense certain documents. Thus denying Libby his right to a fair trial or whatever you lawyers would say.

This seems to fit in with the "I was so busy" defense. That line of reasoning begs the question "well how busy were you?" Right? Then the lawyers can argue, "we can't really show you, the jury, how busy Mr Libby was becasue the gov't won't let us." What's your take on this?

Great diary, thanks again. I always love the diaries where trained professionals chime in on the legal cottage industry that BushCo and the others are launching. People like me have no expertise and we need you guys to post views and diaries to help clarify this stuff.

by mbair on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 01:31:58 PM PDT

[ Parent | Reply to This | none1: Unproductive2: Marginal3: Good4: Excellent ]

[MY RESPONSE]

The problem with discovery is that the fruits are available to both sides. One can see how this has opened the door to Fitz, who previously was so respectful of presidential privilege that, as he points out in his response, he didn't subpoena the PDBs.

Fitz has a dry sense of humor.

Looks like Mr. Cline has done some heavy lifting for the prosecution. BTW, I don't believe that the courts of appeal often overturn on the issue of overly-restrictive discovery in national security cases. That didn't help Mr. North or Mr. Lee, anyway. Good thing for Ollie that he was granted immunity by Congress. Gawd, let's hope that Libby doesn't get called to testify by Specter before his trial ends.

by leveymg on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 02:20:04 PM PDT

[ Parent | Reply to This ]