The filing revealed for the first time testimony by Mr. Libby saying that Mr. Bush, through Mr. Cheney, had authorized Mr. Libby to tell reporters that "a key judgment of the N.I.E. held that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium."

In fact, that was not one of the "key judgments" of the document. Instead, it was the subject of several paragraphs on Page 24 of the document, which also acknowledged that Mr. Hussein had long possessed 500 tons of uranium that was under seal by international inspectors, and that no intelligence agencies had ever confirmed whether he had obtained any more of the material from Africa.

....Citing intelligence as a "key judgment" in such estimates carries great weight with policy makers, because the reports are meant to highlight the most important and solid judgments of the government's intelligence agencies.

Update: Fitz seems to be making it clear that Libby disclosed two separate portions of the NIE report -- the key judgments and the efforts to acquire uranium. Since the official declassification of the report did not occur until July 18, both disclosures had to be pursuant to the "instant" declassification in June that only Bush, Cheney and Libby knew about. One would think there would be something in writing specifying the exact statements pertaining to the efforts to acquire uranium that Bush was ordering declassified since they aren't as readily identifiable as "key judgments" which are contained in their own section of the report.

If there is no written directive, was there a meeting between Bush and Cheney at which Cheney showed him the report with the exact statements he wanted declassified? Or was there just a general conversation where Bush said "Go ahead, whatever you think best?" Did Cheney provide specific statements to Libby to declassify, or was his conversation with Libby general as well? Or is it Libby, Cheney's and Bush's contention that the entire report was orally ordered declassified? If so, why did Hadley go to such great lengths to get the July 18 declassification order for a document already declassified?

Or, was there no early, oral declassification order at all...just one made up after the fact to cover their behinds?

Update: In re-reading Fitz's entire filing, it seems this is small potatoes in the overall scheme of things. On page 29, he writes:

The question of whether defendant did anything improper in disclosing the NIE is not relevant to whether defendant committed perjury by lying about something else, and therefore it cannot constitute favorable evidence under Brady. To the contrary, proof that the disclosure was proper would not negate proof that he committed perjury by lying about something else.