Breaking: Judge Refuses To Block Reporter Subpoena In Libby Trial

[kpete]

Judge Refuses to Block Reporter Subpoena

Feb 6, 10:15 AM (ET)

By PETE YOST



WASHINGTON (AP) - The judge in the CIA leak trial Tuesday refused to block a subpoena for a New York Times reporter's testimony, a ruling favorable to defendant I. Lewis Libby.

Lawyers for Libby want Times reporter David Sanger to testify about a July 2, 2003 conversation in which Libby did not bring up the fact that the wife of Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson worked at the CIA.

Libby's lawyers are trying to rebut prosecution evidence that there was a scheme to reveal Valerie Plame's CIA employment as a way of undermining Wilson's criticism that the administration had twisted prewar intelligence on Iraq.

Invoking First Amendment concerns, lawyers for The New York Times said it is imperative for reporters to protect their confidential sources and that compelling Sanger to testify would damage the news gathering process.

U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton said that Libby's right to a fair trial trumped any First Amendment right there might be to protect confidential sources. Walton pointed out that it was Sanger's source - Libby - who was asking the reporter to testify.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070206/D8N49NNO1.html

[Norquist Nemesis]

1. Favorable to the Defense? Big deal!

He only had to leak it to one or two of them and then lie about it to Federal investigators. The he didn't leak it to ALL of them means absolutely nothing!

[havocmom]

2. LOL Yeah, gonna be a long trial if they haul in every reporter Libby didn't leak to.

He probably didn't leak to the cub reporter of our local daily fish wrap either. What does that prove?

Is that all they got? Trying to plant 'reasonable doubt' by showing there was a reporter he didn't out Plame to?

Isn't the trial about perjury before a grand jury? Once the tapes get played and the other players testify, one reporter who might not have been in the know means squat.

[Cerridwen]

5. Thanks for posting that.

I read the line in article about 4 times trying to see if I could understand why one conversation with one reporter meant that libby wasn't leaking to everyone else around?! I got from it the same thing you did. So libby leaked the information to these "15" reporters but he didn't leak it to the other "5,275" so that proves he wasn't really trying to plant a story? Uh, huh, makes sense in someone's world.

:crazy:

[rock]

12. Here's a guy I didn't murder

Therefore I didn't murder anybody!

[havocmom]

16. Evidently, that's the logic

Sorta 'splains why the country in such a sorry state, doesn't it?

[goforit]

17. LOL!!!.... Now thats Cheney's defense! Libby's lawyers looking incompetent.

[MGKrebs]

3. Good luck with that strategy, Scooter.

Surely if his intention was to "out" Plame, he would have mentioned it to EVERY reporter he talked to around that time? Riight.

Which does nothing to explain why he would have lied about it to the FBI or even mis-remembered telling other reporters about it.

[magellan]

4. So Libby obviously remembers that he didn't tell Sanger about Plame

Curious memory Libby has.

[Cerridwen]

7. I've heard of selective hearing (my dogs have it)

:D

I think this is the first time I've heard of selective memory. Eh, I learn something new every day at DU.

:D

[magellan]

13. My dogs have selective hearing too!

They're a bit like children and husbands, aren't they? ;)

Have you noticed how those who suffer from selective memory are also a very select group? No one even remotely associated with Bush** can remember what they said for very long before they're contradicting themselves or claiming they never said it.

[Alamom]

14. And I thought it was just a cat thing............n/t

[Cerridwen]

20. I've heard that, too...and ya know...

my cat was much more responsive than any dog I've had. In all fairness to my dogs, it's 'on' me not them. I'm a good 'mom' but I suck at discipline.

:blush:

[Cerridwen]

19. Especially 2 yr. olds!

Which, in a lot of ways, reminds me of the current cabal of neo-misfits occupying the WH and her environs.

It also reminds me of when a child will say, "you said I couldn't have THAT cookie, you didn't say I couldn't have THIS cookie" :D

Of course, with children, it's just the unerring logic of childhood and innocence; with this cabal it's the sly maneuverings of a slim-infested pit of vipers (with all due respect to vipers).

[Beetwasher]

6. LOL! Hey! Libby! Where's MY SUBPOENA????

Hey, Libby didn't tell me either, where's MY subpoena! I think Libby's lawyers need to issue about 6 billion subpoena's to everyone ELSE on the planet he DIDN'T talk to about Plame. :rofl:

[H2O Man]

10. Right.

It does not appear that Team Libby has much to go on with this fellow. I can't help but think they are hoping that certain requests will be denied by the judge, so that they have some grounds for the appeals.

[mmonk]

21. You've hit on it.

[goforit]

18. Anything to prolong the trial.

[Old and In the Way]

8. So they only outed Plame 'a little bit'?

Isn't that like being a little bit pregnant?

[npincus]

9. big deal... so he had ONE conversation where he wasn't leaking

like sieve.

[Cerridwen]

11. Fair trial trumps First Amendment rights...that makes me a little

queasy. Yes I believe in fair trials and yes I believe in First Amendment rights but it begs the question; is the accepted definition of 'fair trial' one that can be etched in stone? One person's idea of a fair trial can be another person's kangaroo court.

For example, there was a time in our history in which a 'jury of ones peers' was comprised solely of white men; no women or non-whites need apply. Yet that was considered a 'fair trial.' The definition of 'fair trial' seems fluid rather than concrete.

During a time in which our 'right' to 'security' is used to trump our civil rights, I'm uncomfortable with one right 'trumping' another. I am not a lawyer, but surely there must be some way in which *justice* (not just the legal institution) but justice can be served without tossing out one set of rights in favor of another set of rights.

I'm only on my first cup of coffee so I hope this made some sense.

:D

[Blackhatjack]

15. The failure to mention her to Sanger was obviously pre-planned...

He groomed this source in case he needed someone to point to that he spoke with and did not mention the Plame outing and Wilson discrediting operation.

This has been used before by government officials looking to 'create cover.'