LIBBY FILINGS from 08/16 & 08/17

[stop the bleeding]

the second set of documents looks interesting to my novice eyes.

08/16/2006 Order - 1 pages

08/17/2006 Protective Order - 2 pages


as always the rest are in the vault here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[annabanana]

1. re: 8/17

Is Libby going to twist, slowly in the wind?

[H2O Man]

2. Yes. n/t

[annabanana]

5. will he twist

peacably, doing soft time, looking forward to a lucrative retirement?

[H2O Man]

7. It's interesting

to speculkate. My guess is that there are going to be two interesting things take place in regard to the pre-trial hearings by Thanksgiving. Then, between Thanksgiving and Christmas, Mr. Libby will make a deal with the prosecution. He has no concerns regarding his comfort after the time served; he does have concerns with the amount of time he faces. As each seemingly small ruling is made, he is aware that not only does he face surer and surer conviction, but his options for appeal are wilting on the vine.

[Coexist]

8. H2O Man,

will be doing one of your great posts detailing what these filings might mean?

I haven't read them yet, but your insight always helps me understand their context better.

[blogslut]

3. upsy daisy

n/t

[originalpckelly]

4. Little bastard has been "owned;" cannot use gray mail!

It looks like his trial might actually go forward.

[Me.]

6. Well, Well, Well

the long silence is broken. Good to have some action. Thanks STB.

*shadow government*

[DemReadingDU]

9. Thanks for the latest filings, K&R!

[annabanana]

10. kickety. . . . . .n/t

[Jazz2006]

11. What do you think it means?

(the second doc, that is)

I have a theory but I'm still reading some prior docs to see if it all hangs together. Just wondering, in the meantime, what you think the significance might be.

[Terre]

13. Firedoglake

has a post on this here:
http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/08/19/libby-judge-restr...

Basically, Reggie Walton is saying that Libby doesn't get EVERYTHING he wants, due to the sensitive nature of the documents, and "...that to reveal information contained therein would be potentially harmful to national security."

[Jazz2006]

16. Thanks, Terre. I am still waiting for the OP "stopthebleeding" to

I very much appreciate your response, Terre, and I appreciate the link. I always respect firedoglake's legal analyses and very often (but not always) agree with same

In this instance, though, I am waiting for the OP "stop the bleeding" to respond because my theory is much more complex than "Libby doesn't get everything he wants" as my analysis is also connected to another related DU thread re the alleged Rove "sealed v. sealed" indictment. That's why I was asking the OP what s/he thinks it means before getting into my overlapping analysis, because if s/he thinks they are wholly unrelated, there is no point in posting it here (although it might make an interesting new thread tomorrow) but if s/he thinks they are related, then I would like to know that before I post it because of its length and the overlap between the two.

No point in posting something complex if the thread doesn't call for it, after all

But again, thank you for your response. Much appreciated.

Edit for clarity.

[stop the bleeding]

18. you have my attention

I am very curious to hear your analysis

I myself do not have a theory, I am just a simpleton that tries to keep track of this case, and have a central resource for others such as yourself to resort for research and analysis.

[Terre]

19. OIC

Okie dokie then. 

[dweller]

12. what does

in camera mean?

i understand ex parte to mean consultation with the judge in the case.

thanks
dp

[Jazz2006]

17. In camera means

out of view of the public (i.e. in this case, not in a courtroom open to the public, which is the usual default position). The motion likely took place in the judge's chambers.

And since it was also Ex parte - which means without notice required to the opposing party and without the other party (in this case, the defence since it was Fitzgerald's motion) being entitled to notice of it, without being entitled to respond to it, and without being able to attend or argue against it - it means that the motion was probably heard by Reggie in his chambers with just Fitz and perhaps a court reporter present (and, assuming there was a court reporter present, the record will not be made public at this point, if ever) and that the defence did not have any opportunity to respond to it or argue against it, etc.


Edit for clarity.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

14. Thank you StB!

I'd almost forgotten about this. Thanks for the memory kick!

edit: so many scandals... so little time!

[Emit]

15. K&R, Thanks, STB! n/t