They say that it is "astonishing" that the Government can't easily isolate and produce the documents. Nonetheless, they offer to narrow their request even further. They note that Libby's daily briefings included three parts: The PDB, additional documents provided to Cheney and additional documents provided solely to Libby. The additional materials consisted of documents the CIA staffer thought Cheney or Libby might be particularly interested in or documents in response to an inquiry either of them had made.

Libby now withdraws the request for the documents provided only to him, and instead asks for Cheney's PDB's, with the exception of materials provided only to Cheney. (Apparently, the CIA may have kept better track of the material provided to the Vice President than the material provided to Libby.) Libby says the material earmarked only for Cheney should be designated in the briefing books as for "oval office only."

As for the Government's concerns regarding the classified nature of the materials, Libby points out that he has already seen them and that if the CIA makes them available, only four of his lawyers will view them and that they will go to the Government's offices to do so. They will not make copies of them.

On presidential privilege, Libby's lawyers say the Government has not yet claimed it, and they know of no case in which a defendant has been denied discovery because the White House might make such a claim in the future. Libby argues the court should order the production and then allow the government to assert any privileges.

There is a new date disclosure in Libby's filing. The lawyers say the discovery documents provided show that Libby may have first discussed Valerie Plame Wilson with a government official on June 9 or 10, 2003. The Indictment alleges it was June 11. Libby raises this in an attempt to expand the limited time periods the Judge indicated were relevant to his PDB disclosure request.

They say that Libby's recollection of events of June 9 through July 12 will be the "central focus of the trial." (While the Response notes that it was on June 9 that Libby received faxed documents from the CIA on Joseph Wilson, it fails to mention that July 12 is the date Cheney, Libby and Catherine Martin flew on Air Force Two and discussed reaching out to reporters to discredit Wilson's July 5 op-ed.) The lawyers argue that the PDB's for this period will be "enormously" helpful to them in "reconstructing the matters that commanded Mr. Libby's attention" during this period.

Lastly, Libby argues against providing summaries of the PDB's instead of the PDB's themselves. To illustrate their position, they attach the declassified 2001 memo referring to intelligence that Bin Laden and al-Qaeda planned to attack the United States. I wonder why they picked that particular memo.

I'm still not understanding Libby's need for the PDB's. I would assume reviewing his own e-mails and notes for the period would refresh his recollection about matters commanding his attention....and that if there was some really critical event happening, he would remember it independently.

The thrust behind the pleading seems to be that Libby was distracted by hugely important national matters and couldn't be expected to remember his Plame conversations with reporters at the time he was questioned by FBI agents or the grand jury. Once, I might believe. But on four separate occasions? You'd also have to buy that Libby didn't prepare either for his two FBI interviews or his two grand jury appearances. Color me skeptical. Even if Libby hadn't lawyered up for the FBI interviews, he did so before his grand jury appearances and no lawyer lets his client go into a federal grand jury without prepping and debriefing him, least of all a lawyer with a client as high-profile as Libby. And the media has consistently reported that Libby took copious notes.

It seems more likely to me that Libby intentionally misled investigators and the grand jury in an attempt to protect Cheney (see the timeline here), never dreaming that the reporters would be subpoenaed, and now in hindsight is trying to reconstruct not his memory but an alternative explanation for having lied.

Does anyone see it differently?

Update: Tom Maguire posts his analysis.