Can anyone help with verifying this???

[stop the bleeding]

OP started off like this:

Libby's attorney says that despite reports in the media (see Greatest Page) Libby's defense is not going to include naming names of higher ups who authorized leaking Plame's identity.

So. Maybe he will. Maybe he won't. You'll just have to wait and see. Or you can help Libby make some key decisions.

The stage is set. Libby is taking bids, from the prosecutor (immunity or lesser sentence for flipping on Cheney) and from the republicans ("defense fund" and a future career as an operative) and from the Oval Office (a memento carrying Bush's personal signature, if you know what I mean).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=378036&mesg_id=378036

here is my response here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=378036&mesg_id=378180

Last I heard in the AP reports is that Libby's lawyers were denying the leaking and that is quite a 180 from this:

Libby's defense is not going to include naming names of higher ups who authorized leaking Plame's identity.



links and statement from Libby's defense from the AP

William Jeffress, Libby's lawyer, said, "There is no truth at all" to suggestions that Libby would try to shift blame to his superiors as a defense against the charges.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060210/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x374958


I want to nominate your page but until this statement can be verified I have to wait, cause like I stated up above this is a substantial development/turn if true.

thank you in advance

Any help on being able to verify this would be much appreciated because as stated in the post above this would show a substantial turn of events in what Fibby's lawyers are planning to do.

Thank you in advance.

[stop the bleeding]

1. kicking for an answer n/t

[Kire]

2. Why don't you ask Libby's lawyers what their plan is?

Or at least sum up your question in two or three short sentences so we know what you're asking.

[stop the bleeding]

3. I'll splain in simpler terms - I would like to have what is supposedly

said by Libby's lawyers denoted in box#1 confirmed -which the DU'er said was sourced by AAR as indicated in the link provided.

What is said in box#1 is completely different that what the Associated Press has confirmed as highlighted in box#2.

Any help with verifying this 180 degree turn by Libby's lawyers would be much appreciated, the last thing I need is a cute response of: Why don't you ask Libby's lawyers what their plan is?

I'm sorry but I am trying to find out an actual answer here and if you would have gone to the links provided then I wouldn't have to splain in it in these terms.

Thank you in advance for any help that you can provide.

[stop the bleeding]

4. kicking for an answer n/t

[stop the bleeding]

5. kicking for awareness n/t