Libby's motion to compel discovery explained

Monday, January 30, 2006
Clarice Feldman at American Thinker lays out the strategery of Libby's lawyers through their discovery motion and presents information as to what it may mean for both Libby and the press.

Libby's Defense Goes after Antique Media Reporters

For those who haven't been following the Plame Affair closely, this article is indispensable. (And what may the press be holding back? You may be surprised.)

Justice Department guidelines limit prosecutors' ability to question the press. Before any subpoenas are issued, the prosecutor must have exhausted all other means of getting the information they expect the press to provide concerning their sources. Thus Fitzgerald's case is dependent on specific journalist's answers to specific and narrowly defined questions. A defense lawyer does not work under those same rules thus, especially since there is no Federal Press Shield Law, the Sixth Amendment screeches into the First. May the sparks begin!

Clarice also quotes from an article in the American Journalism Review by Rachel Smolkin which gives the press's reaction and prognostications concerning source waivers. A darned interesting article on its own. I highly recommend it.


Knucklehead said...


I read 'em both.

I'm counting on you to tell me what the heck is going on in this soap opera. It is just way to convoluted - give's me a major headache just trying to get even a tiny grip on who said what to whom when.

Fitgerald was either off his meds, or took a double dose, when he decided to indict.

markg8 said...

Don't anybody else comment!!!
You may be called as a witness.