The Libby defense team responds to the Judge Walton's notion that he ought to impose a gag order on both sides.
Their gist - they have almost never spoken to the press, but when they do, it is in a good-faith attempt to correct egregious misinformation.
The judge seemed to be particularly irked by their quick release of Fitzgerald's correction letter (on Fitzgerald's mis-statement of Libby's NIE leak), so the defense also addresses that.
Fitzgerald also files a response which, in sum and substance, says we don't leak - never have, never will.
UPDATE: Jeralyn Merritt links to more of the filings, has more analysis, and is, well, the More Woman.
Somehow I doubt that the sarcasm will go over well. It almost seems as though they are asking for an adverse ruling in order to get a better result on appeal. Maybe I'm still smarting from the dressing-down I got from J. Limbaugh (ED Mo)(OT: great guy, but a stickler for the rules), but I'd be much more careful in response to an angry judge.
That said, I havn't looked at any cases in the area. They have, so I trust their confidence is not misplaced.
I've been wanting to bring up a question about the proposed gag order, though. IIRC it covered witnesses as well as prosecution and defense. Can you think of a few potential witnesses who have been fairly well-compensated to discuss matters at least tangentially related to this case? How about someone getting $12,500 & expenses per speech?
Posted by: Walter | April 21, 2006 at 11:56 PM
They forgot to remind the judge that giving information to the press is how Fitzy says he can be monitored and supervised. They had to give it over....
Posted by: Specter | April 22, 2006 at 12:20 AM
Yeah, Walter, looks to me like this was the version after all the sarcasm was taken out. As Spector points out, putting in a comment about how they were just assisting the DoJ in supervising Fitzgerald would have been sarcasm. What they submitted wasn't.
I gotta say it's a damn good thing Libby doesn't have somebody like me on the team. I wouldn't be able to resist the many many MANY temptations to snark.
cathy :-)
Posted by: cathyf | April 22, 2006 at 12:37 AM
Wow. This filing appears to this layman, non-lawyer, as setting up a strong argument that Fitz's sloppy and/or perhaps intentionally misleading 'filings' are repeatedly causing 'false' front page 'reports' that are contaminating the juror pool and will prevent a fair trial.
And, 'Oh, by the way, we do not want a gag order because then we would be prevented in the future from protecting our client from even more sloppy/misleading stuff from this renegade prosecutor'.
Posted by: NIBystander | April 22, 2006 at 12:45 AM
TM/Clarice:
I presume this is a shout-out to either/both of you:
Posted by: Walter | April 22, 2006 at 01:35 AM
Fascinating.
So it wasn't that NRO's Byron York has some inside track with the Libby defense team that got him his 'scoop' as I've seen posted here. He was just the only one that published. The rest of the media sat on the letter.
Despit the fact that it rendered a week of their mini-scandal reporting false.
Posted by: Dwilkers | April 22, 2006 at 05:53 AM
One big problem with the Libby response, he makes the ridiculous claim that reporter mis-understand or wrongly intepret goverment filings....THE FACT IS THE REPORTERS, INTENTIONALLY MISCONSTRUE THE FILINGS IN ORDER TO ATTACK BUSH.
I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT REPORTERS WHO CAN WALK AND TALK COULDN'T HAVE MANAGED TO WRITE AN OBJECTIVE STORY IF THEY OR THEIR EDITORS WANTED THEM TO; THEY ALWAYS SEEM TO MISCONSTRUE THINGS IN A BAD WAY FOR REPUBLICANS....HMMMMM.
Posted by: Patton | April 22, 2006 at 06:29 AM
"""So it wasn't that NRO's Byron York has some inside track with the Libby defense team that got him his 'scoop' as I've seen posted here"""
That was just the rantings of Multiple Miggs (Jeffrey) here in the next cell. Pay no attention, he actually believed the Fitz filings in the first place.
Posted by: Patton | April 22, 2006 at 06:30 AM
Interesting response by Libby's team, and I think they hit Fitz's major misstatements in court papers very appropriately. In particular, I had missed the "and/or" in this statement, which fundamentally misstates the case:
The conflation of Wilson/Wilson's wife as a minor issue got quite a bit of play in the press, but I'd missed the (mistaken) reference that supported it. This bit was no surprise: Though I tend to agree with Bob Somerby on this one . . . the problems with the report are just as much the fault of over-hyping, as the misstatement itself: I'm a bit surprised they didn't hone in on Fitz's presser, which left the lasting imression that Libby was the source of the leak that outed Plame. I also found this bit from Fitz more than a little ironic: Left out was the point that, having already gotten there "firstest with the mostest," they really didn't need to.Posted by: Cecil Turner | April 22, 2006 at 08:12 AM
Remember when GAG had a whole different meaning in the Clinton adminstration?
Posted by: Patton | April 22, 2006 at 11:00 AM
Patton
I sense a certain blue dress obsession on your part.
Posted by: JM Hanes | April 22, 2006 at 01:24 PM
I presume this is a shout-out to either/both of you
Credit Clarice, then - I have lacked enterprise on this.
Or at least, getting on their mailing list might be a bit too cozy, although others might wonder, how much more in the tank could I be?
Posted by: TM | April 22, 2006 at 01:52 PM
TM - LOL! Made my day (per usual).
Posted by: JM Hanes | April 22, 2006 at 02:05 PM
Topsecretk9 pointed out two occassions in which a Fitzgerald spokesman supposedly gave out information that wasn't in the indictment. One was the the naming of Edelman as Libby's "principle aid," and the other was the naming of Grossman as the "Undersecretary." I don't think either TSK9 or I can vouch for the reliability of the claim that the information came from a Fitz spokesman, but it is interesting.
Posted by: MJW | April 22, 2006 at 08:39 PM