Reuters: Libby wants what reporters knew in CIA leak case

[Synnical]

http://tinyurl.com/br7lp

By James Vicini 14 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Attorneys for a former top aide to Vice President
Dick Cheney sought on Thursday to force federal prosecutors to turn over information about what journalists knew before the leak of a CIA operative's name.

Lewis "Scooter" Libby's lawyers filed a motion asking the federal judge presiding over the case to require that they be given documents on what the reporters knew about CIA operative
Valerie Plame before her name was disclosed.

<snip>

The attorneys said the motion concerned their request for documents and information on three important issues: "What did the press know prior to July 14, 2003, about whether Valerie Plame Wilson worked at the CIA, from whom did they learn it and with whom did they discuss it."

They said turning over the information would enable them to decide the necessity and scope of pretrial subpoenas for journalists and news organizations.

The motion made clear that what the reporters knew will be an important part of the defense strategy.

And, interestingly, Yahoo has this AP pic next to the article:



White House political adviser Karl Rove assures fellow Republicans that President Bush and the GOP are on the right track as they head into a mid-term election year, at a Republican National Committee luncheon in Washington, Friday, Jan. 20, 2006. Rove, who is under investigation in the CIA leak case, said the war on terrorism would be a central campaign issue in November. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

[Synnical]

1. He's also asking for classified evidence

As posted earlier this week on DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2060687

[htuttle]

2. This is purely about a political point, not a legal one

As far as the release of classified information goes, it matters not one whit whether reporters knew anything ahead of it's release or not. If someone has access to classified data, they are not allowed to CONFIRM OR DENY whether questions about that data are true, even if asked directly.

Just because a reporter might find out about something classified, it is STILL considered classified until it is officially declassified.

In addition, the actual charges of perjury aren't in the slightest way related to this. This would have no bearing on whether he lied under oath or not.

The only point I see in this discovery motion is grist for Rove's propaganda mill.

[Synnical]

4. Well, if they subpoena Novak

It could get interesting, don't cha think?

[Supersedeas]

6. and one has to wonder how cooperative Fitz attorneys will be in the

wake of Judith's obstruction

[leftstreet]

3. Rove looks like Ned Beatty in "Deliverance"

Thanks for the link!

[PVK]

5. Also covered in the Washington Post. n/t

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012602199_pf.html