Replies

He claimed he learned from Tim Russert, when Tim Russert said that he never spoke to Mr. Libby about Ms. Plame, and other evidence shows that he knew about her identity before speaking to Russert.

OK, let's look at one of the perjury charges. Here is what Libby said as to why he told Russert that he did not know that Plame was CIA:

. . . . And then he said, you know, did you know that this – excuse me, did you know that Ambassador Wilson's wife works at the CIA? And I was a little taken aback by that. I remember being taken aback by it. And I said – he may have said a little more but that was – he said that. And I said, no, I don't know that. And I said, no, I don't know that intentionally because I didn't want him to take anything I was saying as in any way confirming what he said, because at that point in time I did not recall that I had ever known, and I thought this is something that he was telling me that I was first learning. And so I said, no, I don't know that because I want to be very careful not to confirm it for him, so that he didn't take my statement as confirmation for him.

And here is where Fitz says the perjury kicks in:

a. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and

b. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA;

Here's the problem. First of all, Fitz is saying that Russert never asked that question.

But if that is the case, then how can you also indict Libby for lying about his response to a non-existent question? It just doesn't make sense.

Libby is being indicted basically for having different recollections than Russert and Cooper. Which is pretty weak.

"But if that is the case, then how can you also indict Libby for lying about his response to a non-existent question? It just doesn't make sense."

Not quite. It looks like Fitz has indicted Libby for allegedly manufacturing both a question from Russert and Libby's answer to this question in his testimony to the GJ. It could be perjury to invent a question that was never asked and then give his answer to that question. We'll have to see what evidence Fitzgerald has to support the charges. The evidence had better be more than the testimony of a couple of media jackels.

a. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and

b. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA;

Statements (a) and (b) are not inconsistent. Assuming the prosecutor can prove it (a big assumption), they are two alternative reasons Libby's statement about learning about Plame from Russert is false: (a) Russert says otherwise (admittedly a weak he-said, she-said argument - but if true, Libby's whole statement to the grand jury is false) and/or (b) Libby knew about Plame's identity before speaking to Russert (this is based on factual evidence - faxes and the statements of others in the administration - and if true, his statement that he didn't recall he had known about Ms. Plame's CIA status when speaking to Russert is false).

I'm not saying these charges will stick. But they are serious.