"Judge Says Time Magazine Reporters Must Turn Over Some Documents to Former White House Aide"

~~ Seems reasonable to me , as Libby is the source ,, so there no "source" for the reporter to protect in this case. A fine line ,as the reporter has rights too.

But in this case I do not see the reporter 's note protected.

Anyone-- even Libby --must be given wide latitude in obtaining
ANY information that could prove they are innocent.~~` TP
===========================
=================

Time Ordered to Give Documents to Libby,
Judge Says Time Magazine Reporters Must Turn Over Some
Documents to Former White House Aide - CBS News:

"Judge says Time magazine reporters must turn over some documents to former White House aide"

WASHINGTON, May. 27, 2006
By TONI LOCY Associated Press Writer"

"U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton limited the scope of subpoenas that Libby's lawyers had aimed at Time, NBC News and The New York Times for e-mails, notes, drafts of articles and other information.

But in a 40-page ruling, Walton rejected the news organizations' argument that they have a broad right to refuse to provide such information in criminal cases."

- White House Staff Begins Ethics Classes

FOXNews.com - Politics - White House Staff Begins Ethics Classes: "ASHINGTON — Mandatory ethics classes began for White House staff on Tuesday, the direct result, according to White House aides, of the indictment and resignation of former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby.

Libby was indicted 10 days ago for perjury and obstruction of justice charges in the CIA leak case.

A directive memo went out last week to the more than 3,000 White House staffers announcing the sessions. The classes are being conducted by the White House counsel's office."

, "The role of Novak. "By William F. Buckley Jr.

~~ I am sort of curious about this myself. ~` tp

--------------

By William F. Buckley Jr. Tue Nov 1, 8:11 PM ET

---

The hot-blooded search for criminality in the matter of Cheney/Libby/Rove has not truly satisfied those in search of first-degree venality. Very soon after the indictment of Mr. Libby, the tricoteuses glumly conceded that no conspiracy has been uncovered. It is not alleged that Mr. Cheney whispered to Mr. Libby that he should conceal the truth from the grand jury or the special prosecutor. The great blast of publicity came from the technical exposure of Mr. Libby to (in his case, at his age) a life term in jail, plus a million-odd-dollar fine. If John Jones is hauled in and word is given out that if found guilty he will be hanged and his severance pay confiscated, the public's attention will be drawn to his crime even if it was to double park.

"The great question here is Robert Novak. It was he who published, in his column, that Mrs. Joseph Wilson was a secret agent of the CIA.

I am too close a friend to pursue the matter with Novak, and his loyalty is a postulate. What was going on? If there are mysteries in town, that surely is one of them, the role of Novak."

"The first sitting White House staffer to be indicted in 135 years"

~~ Even the Dems are right sometime.

This Libby thing -- dare I say "Liggy-gate" --- is very serious stuff.

On the scale of Iran-Contra , if not well beyond. The Bush Team must now confront a

Libby-gate judical trial OR a guilty plea by Libby.

Either way ,, as the Carpenter's sang

"We've only just begun ......". This thing is gonna get a lot bigger before it gets smaller. ~`

~ ` technopolitical
--------------------------------------------------------

The Democratic Party: "Washington, D.C. -- Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid delivered the following statement on the floor of the U.S. Senate calling for a secret session of the Senate.

Remarks as prepared:

'This past weekend, we witnessed the indictment of I. Lewis Libby, the Vice President's Chief of Staff and a senior Advisor to President Bush. Libby is the first sitting White House staffer to be indicted in 135 years."

Confused about the CIA leak case? Start here. Christian Science Monitor

~~Nice article here below , for those who have not followed Plame-gate from its start.

Looks like 'Libby' -- the Vice Presidential Chief of Staff-- will be indicted for lying during the investigation.

At least Bill Clinton only lied about haveing sex.

Libby may have lied to obstruct the truth on matters of national-- and even global --- security.

Why ? To protect a calculated lie the President G.W. Bush made during the 2003 State of the Union address. Read below for more.~~ ~ ` TP

--------------------------

The Christian Science Monitor, Fri Oct 28:

"Confused about the CIA leak case? Start here."

By Linda Feldmann, Staff writer of The Christian Science MonitorFri Oct 28, 4:00 AM ET

For almost two years, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has led an investigation to determine whether anyone acted illegally when the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame was made public. After hearing testimony from some of Washington's most powerful figures, a grand jury is expected to issue indictments as soon as Friday. The Monitor's White House correspondent, Linda Feldmann, answers key questions about the case.

Q. How did this affair begin?

At its heart lie questions about the Bush administration's case for war against Iraq. On Jan. 28, 2003, in his State of the Union address, President Bush included these 16 words: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

The implication was that Iraq was developing a nuclear-weapons program. But US intelligence officials had by then - and have since - expressed doubts about that claim. In July 2003, Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador to two African countries and Iraq, wrote an op-ed in The New York Times disputing Mr. Bush's statement.

The CIA, he wrote, sent him to Niger in 2002 to determine if Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Africa. He concluded no. One week after Mr. Wilson's op-ed, syndicated columnist Robert Novak reported that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, worked as "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."

At issue is whether Mr. Novak's government sources blew her cover as a CIA agent, in violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982..............
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20051028/ts_csm/aplame;_ylt=AuS0tA5sKD5c2CDnGXU16Wys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-

Copyright © 2005 The Christian Science Monitor

Explaining the Charges

Explaining the Charges: "Explaining the Charges

By Fred Barbash
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 28, 2005; 3:12 PM

Lying about a crime, the accusation against I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, has itself been a crime since the time of Hammurabi."

Reporter's shield bill introduced in House , © 2005 The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

~ ~ ~ The Court ruling that reporters
can be compelled to reveal their
sources is bad news. Luckily,
Congress can fix the situation
A Republican and a Democrat
co-sponsoring a much need

piece of legislation. ~~ TP

Reporter's shield bill introduced in House
© 2005 The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

Journalists would be shielded from
being forced to reveal confidential
sources under the
"Free Flow of Information Act."
Reporters must testify in CIA leak probe

BY TOM BRUNEWASHINGTON BUREAU

February 16, 2005

WASHINGTON -- A U.S. appeals court ruled Tuesday that two reporters must testify before a federal grand jury about their confidential sources in a probe trying to determine who in the Bush administration leaked the identity of a covert CIA officer.

In an expected ruling, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a lower court ruling that held in contempt Matthew Cooper of Time magazine and Judith Miller of The New York Times for refusing to testify.

Time and the Times Tuesday said ---- { what an intereresting pharse, almost poetic ~~tp ] ---- they would appeal the decision to the full circuit and possibly the Supreme Court, and would seek a stay to keep the reporters out of jail.

The publications had tried to quash the subpoenas based on the First Amendment and reporters' privilege to protect confidential sources under federal common law, which is based on practice than on statutes.

In October, District Judge Thomas Hogan ruled against them.The decision prompted calls from Floyd Abrams, attorney for both reporters, and groups such as Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, for Congress to enact a federal shield law to permit reporters to protect confidential sources.

Copyright © 2005, Newsday, Inc.
----------------------------------