04/05/06 PDF Court Docs on Plame - Question?

[stop the bleeding]

Is anyone actually reading them or is everyone just taking what news outlets are saying for granted?


http://www.nysun.com/30561.pdf


warning 39 pages - I am on page 15 right now.

[stop the bleeding]

1. so far Fitz has been tearing apart Libby's requests on all motions

pretty effectively, but here is one part that I found on page 9.


"Because the government does not intend at this time to call three of these individuals - Mr. Tenet, Mr. Hadley, and Mr. Rove"- .....

It is interesting the language Fitz has used here in regards to Rover and Hadley.

[myrna minx]

2. I'm bookmarking this thread and will comment later.

This will take me some time to go through. I'm only on page two, and I probably won't be able to read it all until the afternoon. I want to savor these pages. :evilgrin: Thanks for the link. I look forward to your thoughts.

[kpete]

3. Way over my head

but this from: http://bornatthecrestoftheempire.blogspot.com/ is interesting & relevant...

Now, technically, there is nothing illegal in this, it is in the president's prerogative to declassify anything, anytime, but when combined with Murray Waas's last National Journal article, which reported "that Bush had been specifically advised that claims he later made in his 2003 State of the Union address -- that Iraq was procuring high-strength aluminum tubes to build a nuclear weapon -- might not be true."

[stop the bleeding]

4. AGENDA21 found this from the leftcoaster see here

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/007296.php


very interesting - but their last statement is a signal to the blogs see here:

So, the uranium from Africa claim was in the body of the NIE but it was rebutted by INR in a text box in the Annex. See this PDF file which has the key judgments along with the text in the body of the NIE (on the uranium claim) and the INR rebuttal. What I wonder though is whether the Bush administration made it appear as if the text in the body of the NIE was part of the key judgments. (Now that I look more carefully at the PDF file, I wonder if that was really what happened). Enterprising reporters may want to take a look.

[myrna minx]

5. This thread has an interesting discussion too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=857752&mesg_id=857752

Agenda21 of the other thread also posted this very informative link.
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/007296.php


I wish I had the time to pour over everything right now. :-(

[Catherine Vincent]

6. No, I'll leave that to you, H2O Man and the other Plame experts

Keep up the good work!

[stop the bleeding]

7. there were 3 sets of Court Docs from yesterday not just

the one set containing the 39 pages

1) is 13 pages just started reading it

2) on the list is a 2 pager not saying much in my eyes, but I could be missing the real meaning - so much information this morning.

3) 39 pages and on page 15 right now -

MEMORANDUM OPINION as to I. LEWIS LIBBY; Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on 4/5/06. (erd) (Entered: 04/05/2006)

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 51 Motion To Bar Ex Parte Submissions as to I. LEWIS LIBBY (1);Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on 4/5/06. (erd) (Entered: 04/05/2006)

RESPONSE by USA as to I. LEWIS LIBBY re 68 Third MOTION to Compel DISCOVERY UNDER RULE 16 AND BRADY (Kedian, Kathleen) (Entered: 04/05/2006)

[rpgamerd00d]

8. GO TO PAGE 23.

Its there.

[stop the bleeding]

9. see what the leftcoaster says about page 23 and the key judgments

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/007296.php

very interesting,

also can you make anything on the other 2 rulings from yesterday in regards to the ex parte Section 4 arguments?