Now this article that's out today notes that Walton looks to have issued a ruling on Libby's case that will make it easier for Libby's defense to get his case dismissed that won't allow Fitzgerald a way to say "no" as implied with the other article I quoted.grrrr.
In this ruling here, Walton's basically telling Libby's people that they just have to find enough "secret" evidence that he can rule is *necessary* for Libby's defense so that it comes down to a choice between releasing state secrets vs. him having a fair trial. The hidden message here is if the state secrets are sufficiently important (and with Walton, it appears his measuring stick is rather low, or made low by undisclosed financial or other influences), then Walton can effectively dismiss the case, no matter what Fitzgerald wants to do.
This SUCKS people! We need to find out specifically what Libby's lawyers are trying to use to rationalize that is evidence that "can't be exposed" to see if it is applicable or something that Walton's using as an excuse. Sibel, is there a whistleblower, up for the task here?
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Walton & Libby.
Calipendence in the comments:
Posted by lukery at 9/23/2006 10:49:00 AM