Off Topic, but I thought you might be interested in this findlaw article on a Libby pardon.

The GOP can’t make too much more of this without going into an actual legal battle with the NYT. They just want to squeeze as much juice as they can out of this story to excite some of their base. Overall, I think the fight does help the GOP. Nobody’s up in arms over the supposedly secret program, unlike the wiretapping program. And the NYT does come off as being out to stir up trouble with the Bush administration. Maybe discussing the specifics of the program amounts to nothing, which I think will be the case, but as long as the administration can go out there and say that if printing the story means we catch one less terrorist, in the end that hurts the NYT image and rallies a few more Republican voters.

This whole uproar is about changing the bounds of legitimate political discussion, nothing more. This administration has no intentions of going after the NYT now, but they’ve successfully introduced the notion that it’s ok to accuse the national press of treason. This is all about creating a political climate where they can maintain their grip on power in the face of all their disasters by manipulating the public discourse. It is clearly an act of desperation, but it just might work. The political elite in this country are so divorced from everyday reality that they may just allow this administration to channel people’s fear and rage against our most basic institutions.

Boy, the WH must really be up to no good if they are crowing this loudly about the NYT piece.

As far as I know, the Democrats haven’t thrown their 2 cents into this mess, nor should they. The media gets distracted by this because they live in fifteen minute increments, and Iraq and NO were soooooo 15 minutes ago.

One correction, Pete. The leaking the NIE to the NYT? That’s a lie, Scooter Libby’s lie to protect Dick. Nope, he wasn’t ordered to leak the NIE to Judy (the timing is off, for one thing, because he leaked the NIE to Woodward a week before he was ordered). He was ordered to leak Plame’s identity.

But the hypocrisy surrounding leaking? There you’re right on the money.

Well, the â€One Minute Hate,†is probably an original thought, the orphan stepchild of a wiser mind. The Two Minute Hate–how I wish I had gotten that right–I’m sure I picked up from someone who remembers their Orwell better.

Yes, I agree, polly. But I’d bet a good deal of money that’s not what he was ordered to leak just before he went off leaking to Judy.

Libby wouldn’t have asked for the attribution â€Former Hill staffer†for leaking something he had leaked to two other people. Nor would he have asked Addington, Cheney, and Bush for permission to leak something he had already leaked.

Before we get to the New York Times, can we prosecute Bob Woodward and all the folks who leaked to him for â€Plan of Attackâ€? Compare the stuff in that book (specific sources and methods) with the SWIFT stuff. In a rational world (I know, I know), we’d be talking about whether it’s appropriate for an Administration to betray their allies for the sake of good publicity. When I say betray their allies, I mean that literally. Some of the stuff revealed in â€Plan of Attack†about Iraqis (mostly Kurds) who helped the CIA was quite detailed. Given the subsequent events in Iraq, I’m sure those folks didn’t appreciate the book.

Why are they screaming so loud over this?

Here’s a speculative thought: they are currently fighting NYT over the publication of *another*, more damaging story, about to come out. They need to establish the bad faith of the Times.

Here is the text from the Fitzgerald filing about the leaking of the NIE to the WSJ. Fitzgerald refers to Libby’s GJ transcript, so Libby must have testified on this matter.

In addition, the government’s evidence at trial (including the defendant’s grand jury transcript) will refer to a July 17, 2003, Wall Street Journal editorial entitled “Yellowcake Remix,†which contained quotations from the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (“NIEâ€). This editorial resulted from the defendant’s transmittal, through another government official, of a copy of portions of the NIE to the Wall Street Journal shortly before the editorial was published.
Filing 5/12/06

and here is the WSJ trying very hard to imply they didn’t get a leak, but never actually deny it…because they did

Mr. Libby wasn’t a source for our editorial, which quoted from the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate concerning the Africa-uranium issue. But Mr. Fitzgerald alleges in a court filing that Mr. Libby played a role in our getting the information, which in turn shows that â€notwithstanding other pressing government business, [Libby] was heavily focused on shaping media coverage of the controversy concerning Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium from Niger.â€
WSJ 8/8/06

Note:

The WSJ states that Libby was not their source. Fitzgerald never made that claim.

The WSJ never denies the allegation they refer to about Libby playing a role.

They also don’t deny that they received â€a copy of portions of the NIEâ€.

I defer to your detailed knowledge of all things Miller, on whether Libby leaked the NIE to Judy or something else.

emptywheel,

Yes, and it gets even better when you think about. Cheney covered for Libby when he talked to Fitzgerald. If Libby flips, Cheney is in big trouble. Come to think of it, if Rove has documentary evidence of that, Cheney may already be in trouble. Man, I would hate to be the guy who had to decide to choose between prosecuting Rove and Cheney.