Scooter Libby has just filed a 29 page Reply Memorandum (pdf) (to Patrick Fitzgerald's Response) to Libby's Third Motion to Compel Discovery, and 25 pages of exhibits.

I just obtained them and am about to start reading. Details soon. Also, scroll to the bottom to see other bloggers' takes as they come in, as I'll be updating with links to them.

Shorter version: Watch out Marc Grossman, Ari Fleischer, Karl Rove, George Tenet and Joe Wilson: Scooter's coming after you. (more below.)

First Update: Libby may call Joe Wilson as a hostile witness (page 9)

...because the defense may call Mr. Wilson as a hostile witness, we need to prepare to examine him, if necessary, on the details of the trip, including his wife's role in selecting him for the assignment and the findings he reported to the CIA, and later, to the press.

[Scroll down for updates}

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has written a letter to the Judge in the Scooter Libby case correcting a sentence in his filing last week discussing Libby's disclosure of portions of the NIE report to Judith Miller.

That sentence said Libby "was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium." Instead, the sentence should have conveyed that Libby was to tell Miller some of the key judgments of the NIE " and that the NIE stated that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium."

In other words, if I'm reading this correctly, Libby didn't tell Miller that the portion of the report referring to Iraq attempting to acquire uranium was a "key judgment" of the report. As many have pointed out, it wasn't a key judgment of the report. It was not mentioned until page 24. The "key judgments" are at the beginning.

We discussed the meaning and relevance of "key judgment" here, quoting the New York Times:

I meant to post this the other day but it got lost in draft mode.

The Judge in the Scooter "Libby" case denied most of Libby's request to prevent the Government from submitting secret (ex parte) filings on classified information that may have to be disclosed to the defense. You can read the memorandum order here (pdf.) But he threw Libby one bone.

The Judge ruled (page 12) that Team Libby can file an ex parte (secret) affidavit within two weeks outlining its defense so that the Judge will be more informed before deciding what material Fitzgerald has to turn over to Libby.

That's kind of cool for Libby, because it means the Judge will know exactly where Libby is going but Fitzgerald won't.

Think Progress and Firedoglake report:

According to court documents released in the Scooter Libby case, the former chief of staff to the Vice President received "the specific permission of President Bush" to leak a highly classified intelligence document:

"Defendant testified that the Vice President later advised him that the President had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE. Defendant testified that he also spoke to David Addington, then Counsel to the Vice President, whom defendant considered to be an expert in national security law, and Mr. Addington opined that Presidential authorization to publicly disclose a document amounted to a declassification of the document."

Murray Waas has a new article with more details and analysis. Tom Maguire and Left Coaster have more. Here's a pdf link to Fitzgerald's pleading. I'll update after I've read the documents and articles.

There's a curious article in yesterday's Insight News, a conservative publication, that reports that Libby's lawyers in court filings have named three possible sources at the State Department for the Valerie Plame Leak: former Secretary of State Colin Powell, former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and then-Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman.

I say "curious" because it is based on a pleading (pdf) filed three weeks ago, on March 17, 2006, and hardly breaking news. Why write a new article on this? A thorough read of the article suggests to me that Libby's lawyers want it out there.

Let's take a closer look. Insight reports:

The media has reported on some of the subpoenas Lewis "Scooter" Libby has issued to reporters and news agencies. Here's a list of those who are fighting them, and the federal docket numbers of the cases. In most cases, the recipients of the subpoenas generally were moving for more time to respond.

CASE #: 1:06-mc-00123-RBW: NBC NEWS & AFFILIATES
CASE #: 1:06-mc-00124-RBW: MATTHEW COOPER
CASE #: 1:06-mc-00125-RBW: JUDITH A. MILLER
CASE #: 1:06-mc-00126-RBW: ANDREA MITCHELL
CASE #: 1:06-mc-00127-RBW: TIM RUSSERT
CASE #: 1:06-mc-00128-RBW: TIME, INCORPORATED
CASE #: 1:06-mc-00129-RBW: NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY

The Court entered this order today (from the court's docket sheet):

In Scooter "Lewis" Libby's latest motion for discovery (pdf), Team Libby names the witnesses it expects the Government to call at his trial. Note that this is not an official witness list, but an attempt by Libby to provide grounds for the Judge to order documents concerning them to be produced to the defense. The AP lists them as:

• Richard Armitage, former deputy secretary of state.
• Ari Fleischer, former White House press secretary.
• Marc Grossman, former undersecretary of state for political affairs.
• Colin Powell, the former secretary of state.
• Karl Rove, the deputy White House chief of staff.
• George Tenet, the former CIA director.
• Joseph Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador.
• Valerie Plame Wilson.
• Stephen Hadley

With the advent of electronic filing in the federal courts, lawyers can now file pleadings 24/7 and they take advantage of it. I thought the news today would be over Team Libby and Fitz fighting about whether Fitz was properly appointed as Special Counsel.

Now I see Team Libby moved on to the next front, filing a late-night discovery pleading (pdf). (The documents he is requesting are summarized in this proposed order attached to his request.) This issue is far more interesting, as AP reporter Pete Yost explains.

"If the jury learns this background information" about finger-pointing, "and also understands Mr. Libby's additional focus on urgent national security matters, the jury will more easily appreciate how Mr. Libby may have forgotten or misremembered ... snippets of conversation" about Plame's status, the defense lawyers said.

Shorter Libby: My memory is bad because I was so embroiled in internal fighting and finger pointing at the White House about why we didn't find any WMD's that the Plame/Wilson matter was a trifling detail in comparison.

Adam Liptak reports in Thursday's New York Times that Lewis "Scooter" Libby's defense team served subpoenas on the New York Times and its former reporter Judith Miller for records of Judith Miller and Nicholas Kristof pertaining to Valerie Plame.

The new subpoenas seek her notes and other materials, including any other documents concerning Ms. Wilson prepared by Ms. Miller and Nicholas D. Kristof, an Op-Ed columnist for The Times; drafts of a personal account by Ms. Miller published in The Times in October concerning her grand jury testimony; documents concerning her interactions with an editor of The Times; and documents concerning a recent Vanity Fair article on the investigation.

Miller's attorney, Bob Bennett, says the supboena is too broad and she will fight it.

Representatives of Tim Russert and Matthew Cooper confirm they also have been subpoenaed. [Via Editor and Publisher.]

Update: Don't miss Reddhedd's excellent take on the Judge's order, down to the footnotes.

*********
The trial judge in the Scooter Libby trial Friday partially granted Libby's request for Presidential Daily Briefings to assist him in preparing his defense that he was too preoccupied with important national security matters to remember the details of his conversations with FBI investigators, the grand jury and reporters about Valerie Plame Wilson.

The Court's memorandum of reasons is here. The Order is here.

Essentially, the Court said the Government could produce redacted PDB's that were viewed both by Cheney and Libby. The Goverment can, at its option, disclose topical overviews instead of the actual PDB's. The Government also has to provide a topic index of the inquiries for additional information Libby made during the briefings. The dates are: June 7 to July 14, 2003; October12 - 16, 2003 November 24 to 28, 2003; March 3 to 7, 2004 and March 22 to 26, 2004.

These documents most likely will never be seen by us or the jury. They are to assist Libby with refreshing his memory. The Court also set a deadline for the Government to challenge his order on the grounds of executive privilege.

The Government's March 2 response to Lewis "Scooter" Libby's request for presidential daily briefings was unsealed today. It consisted of an affidavit (pdf) by CIA information review officer Marilyn Dorn alleging that the request was too burdensome and could be subject to executive privilege. Dorn said it could take the CIA 9 months to compile the materials sought in Libby's original request and 3 months to assemble those for the restricted time period suggested by the Judge. Libby had sought the information to refresh his memory about the specific matters with which he was so preoccupied that he was unable to remember details about discussions with reporters concerning Valerie Plame.

Reddhedd at Firedoglake analyzes the filing.

Libby's lawyers have responded with this filing (pdf). They say Libby needs the material in the PDB's to show that the matters he was concerned with "dwarfed in importance the snippets of conversations about Valerie Plame that form the core of the Indictment."

The Judge issued three orders in the Lewis "Scooter" Libby case today. The first two are no big deal. One set a schedule for subpoenaing jounalists, filing objections to the subpoenas and holding a hearing in April on the objections. No further court permission must be sought before either side issues the subpoenas.

The second order denied a request by Libby that Fitz not be allowed to continue filing ex parte affidavits with the court. (Ex parte means one-sided -- only the party who files it and the judge get to see it.)

The third order indicates to me that Libby is going to lose his request for being provided with the Presidential Daily Briefings, and even the documents he will receive will be for a much shorter time period than he had requested. I have uploaded the two page order here.