Libby's team continues their tussle with the press. I intend to post the documents shortly.
Lawyers for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby urged a federal judge Monday to force several media organizations to turn over e-mails, drafts of news articles and reporters' notes they say the former top White House aide needs to receive a fair trial in the CIA leak case.
In a 45-page filing, Libby's lawyers said reporters have "no right _ under the Constitution or the common law _ to deprive Mr. Libby of evidence that will help establish his innocence at trial."
Hmm, I am looking at more than 45 pages here.
1. Here is Part 1 of the Consolidated response (23 page .pdf)
2. Here is Part 2 (27 page .pdf)
I am wimping out on the exhibits for now - they seem to be press clippings of various stories. [I am wimping out but cboldt is not! See UPDATE for a list of exhibits.]
Just picking through it - on p. 2, we see that the defense subpoenaed the Wash Post, which handed over the Woodward memo about his meeting with Libby (as previously reported at the bottom of the story, or by Jeff, with Eerie Prescience). HOWEVER - the defense did not pursue other material provided by the WaPo to the prosecution which the judge ruled did not have to be disclosed to the defense, and considers the WaPo to be finished. So, the whole question of who leaked to Woodward won't be answered by this route.
And on p. 12 of Part 2, we see that Andrea Mitchell has handwritten notes of what "may" be a conversation between her and Libby during the relevant time period prior to the publication of Novak's column. Her side claims they are irrelevant since they make no mention of Ms. Plame; Libby's side notes that, if Plame was not mentioned, the ruthless campaign by Evil BushCo to punish Joe by outing Valerie was evidently pursued with sub-maximal vigor. Well - it i snews to me that these two spoke.
The defense also slips a bit in describing Ms. Mitchell's situation vis a vis the investigation - they criticize Fitzgerald and cite Ms. Mithcell's statement that she has never been asked to testify, but overlook her earlier statement that she had spoken to investigators.
This is what she said on Oct 29, 2005 when discussing the case on CNBC's "The Tim Russert Show":
MITCHELL: You know, I should have spoke--'cause there's been a lot blogged about all of this--I was called by the CIA because it was erroneously reported in The Washington Post that I was the recipient of the leak before Novak's column came out, and I had not been. So I was never questioned because I simply told the FBI--and, you know, NBC put out a statement that night--that I had not been a recipient of the leak; in fact, I had learned about it from Novak's column like everyone else.
She was never questioned because she simply started talking... gee, that could have been any Saturday night when I was younger. Well, I still don't know what she meant by that.
On Matt Cooper, p. 13 of Part 2 provides a real headscratcher on the topic of Cooper's notes about the Cooper-Libby phone conversation on July 12:
In fact, there is no mention in these neasrly verbatim notes, in subsequent emails with colleagues, or elsewhere that Mr. Libby made any comment about Ms. Wilson at all.
Wow - is the prosecution really relying on Cooper's undocumented memory?
And even stranger - documents provided by the Special Counsel show that Matt Cooper kept a "Scooter Libby file" on a TIME database called Nirvana, which he updated after the July 12 talk. But the prosecutor has, apparently, not turned these over to the defense. Well, that may be a misunderstanding, since the prosecution has turned over other things. Still, the defense hammers the point that "it is hard to believe the government's allegation - that Mr. Libby confirmed this affiliation - if not a single employee of TIME took a moment to memorialize this fact".
From p. 18, we learn that Matt Cooper asked Tim Burger, another TIME reporter, to follow-up on Rove's information by calling Bill Harlow of the CIA press office. What, the defense wonders, did Mr. Harlow offer? One might presume he was chastened by his debacle with Robert Novak, but who knows?
And someone from TIME, probably Massimo Calabresi (who got a byline on the "War on Wilson?" piece) called Joe Wilson before the Cooepr-Rove talk, and again afterwards to get his reaction. Was he asked about his wife's role in his trip, or her CIA connection? What did he say? Inquiring defense lawyers want to know.
NOTE TO PACER FANS: I can't figure out the case numbers for the media related filings, but no matter - on PACER, go to Civil cases, District of Columbia, and name search on "Libby". A block of about six cases appear from 2006, and your common sense will take you from there. For the Libby *criminal* case, the case number is 1:05-cr-00394.
UPDATE: From cboldt: