Plame @ MindSay

[The UPDATE is a must read for Plamaniacs, and I have a new post evolving here].

We have a new 13 page opinion [and the HTML version].  The subject seems to be is the ex parte submissions by Fitzgerald (I have read just one page and dinner calls...)

MORE:  Here is the Order - the defense request is granted in part and denied in part.

After a quick skim of both, I see no bombshells [BUT THE NIGHT IS YOUNG - see below for a filing from Fitzgerald which cites Bush and Cheney]

UPDATE:  The late bird gets the worm - Josh Gerstein of the Sun reports on a late night thirty page response on discovery by Fitzgerald which slipped past my early evening stake-out.  From the Sun:

Bush Authorized Leak to Times, Libby Told Grand Jury
New York Sun Web Exclusive

A former White House aide under indictment for obstructing a leak probe, I. Lewis Libby, testified to a grand jury that he gave information from a closely-guarded "National Intelligence Estimate" on Iraq to a New York Times reporter in 2003 with the specific permission of President Bush, according to a new court filing from the special prosecutor in the case.

The court papers from the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, do not suggest that Mr. Bush violated any law or rule. However, the new disclosure could be awkward for the president because it places him, for the first time, directly in a chain of events that led to a meeting where prosecutors contend the identity of a CIA employee, Valerie Plame, was provided to a reporter.

Some documents produced to defendant could be characterized as reflecting a plan to discredit, punish, or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson. The government declined to produce documents relating solely to other subjects of the investigation, even if such documents could be so characterized as reflecting a possible attempt or plan to discredit or punish Mr. Wilson or Ms. Wilson. The government has no knowledge of the existence of any notes reflecting comments by former Secretary of State Powell regarding Ms. Wilson during a September 2003 meeting.

Because the government does not intend at this time to call three of these individuals – Mr. Tenet, Mr. Hadley, and Mr. Rove – defendant is not entitled to discovery based on the need to prepare to cross-examine those individuals.

Very interesting - Rove is virtually named in the indictment as having told Libby that Novak was about to publish a column on Wilson.  One might think that if he is not being called, it is because his own problems are still in play.  And what about Hadley - wouldn't similar logic apply?

P. 19 - Get Dick!:

At some point after the publication of the July 6, 2003 Op Ed by Mr. Wilson, Vice President Cheney, defendant’s immediate superior, expressed concerns to defendant regarding whether Mr. Wilson’s trip was legitimate or whether it was in effect a junket set up by Mr. Wilson’s wife. And, in considering “context,” there was press reporting that the Vice President had dispatched Mr. Wilson on the trip (which in fact was not accurate).

Developing (I have to take a break).

And more on Cheney:

Defendant further testified that on July 12, 2003, he was specifically directed by the Vice President to speak to the press in place of Cathie Martin (then the communications person for the Vice President) regarding the NIE and Wilson. Defendant was instructed to provide what was for him an extremely rare “on the record” statement, and to provide “background” and “deep background” statements, and to provide information contained in a document defendant understood to be the cable authored by Mr. Wilson. During the conversations that followed on July 12, defendant discussed Ms. Wilson’s employment with both Matthew Cooper (for the first time) and Judith Miller (for the third time).  Even if someone else in some other agency thought that the controversy about Mr. Wilson and/or his wife was a trifle, that person’s state of mind would be irrelevant to the importance and focus defendant placed on the matter and the importance he attached to the surrounding conversations he was directed to engage in by the Vice President.

Quick thought - if Fitzgerald had any evidence at all that Cheney and Libby discussed Ms. Plame on this flight, he could have said himself a lot of verbiage by saying so (and closed the file on the Libby-Cooper chat).  His silence speaks volumes.  OTOH, the previous excerpt certainly suggests that Cheney and Libby discussed Ms. Plame sometime after July 6.

MORE:  Either Andrew Sullivan can't read, or he can't write:

Bush Nailed

We have a missing link. No, I don't mean the post-fish. I mean the Bush connection in the Plame leak. It turns out that, according to Libby, it was the president who first sanctioned the leak of the NIE data to discredit Joseph Wilson. Money quote:

..."Defendant testified that the vice president later advised him that the president had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE," the prosecution filing said.

Emphasis added to what will surely become the rave-up lefty talking point.  However, as Mr. Gerstein noted, and as the excerpt printed by Mr. Sullivan makes clear, we *don't know* what Cheney and Bush discussed before Bush authorized the partial disclosure of the NIE.  President Bush may have been vitally interested specifically in discrediting Joe Wilson (and rebutting one's critics is not a crime); he may not have heard that name, and simply authorized the disclosure to help with the White House side of the press coverage.  That said, Bush's involvement preceded the July 8 meeting with Judy Miller, (p. 19/20 of .pdf), which is not great news.

So, was "Bush Nailed" for helping with a White House PR pushback?  I'll bet he gets involved with White House message management pretty regularly.

TECHNO-NOTE: The Sun Also Sets, or at least, their site is down as of 11:25 AM ET.  I blame Andrew and the Christy Hardin Smith of the firegals.  That said, the Sun does provide a link to Fitzgerald's filing.

CALM AT CNN:  from CNN's David Ensor:

ENSOR: ...If the president decides to declassify information, he has that legal right. So, it's not about a law being broken here, and it's not about Valerie Plame-Wilson's name. But it does show us the first evidence that the president himself wanted some of this information put out in the media.

CLANCY: Well, at the time, if you go back to that period in time, there was a clamor from not only the media but from a lot of Americans that wanted more information, more details about what were, up to that point, rather vague statements at times by diplomats trying to assess just what was the threat there. So this was seen -- would this be normal business in Washington, really?

ENSOR: I'm afraid so, yes. And, you know, after all, the -- Ambassador Wilson -- [former] Ambassador [Joseph] Wilson being Valerie Plame-Wilson's husband -- had put out a piece [a July 2003 editorial in The New York Times] in which he said -- in which he attacked the administration for suggesting Iraq was going after uranium in Africa.

The administration wanted to highlight certain parts of this until-then-classified document that suggested that Iraq was aggressively pursuing some aspects of a nuclear weapons program, was looking for ways of getting uranium.

And so, they wanted to have that evidence out there to help their case in the run-up to war. Selective leaking authorized at the highest level, that's -- I'm afraid that is business as usual in Washington. It's been practiced by Republicans and Democrats alike.