Replies

You need to check out the indictment to see what it really says. Fitzgerald's case does not hinge on a difference between what the reporters said and what Libby said. It hinges on what Libby told the FBI and the Grand Jury, and how that is different than what the truth actually was.

Libby told the FBI and the Grand Jury that when he talked to the reporters he didn't know that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. That is not true - he did know that she worked for the CIA as he had been told by a State Department official, by Cheney and had confirmed it with the CIA as well.

There are many ways to defend Libby. One way is for Libbly to produce witnesses that say Russert, Miller and Cooper told other people different things than they told the grand jury.

Russert, Miller and Cooper had best be certain that they did not ever say anything contradictory at any Washington party where Bush and Cheney people over heard them. Or have anyone who knows the truth about Russert.

Media people run their mouths way too much at parties. They never think that they can be challenged. I doubt that Libby beleived that Russert would lie for him. But to think libby is lying you have to beleive that libby believed that Russert would lie for him. That is a stretch.

I think there is a good chance that Russert was covering his own rump when he contradicted Libby. Libby said Russert was his source. Russert says he was not. I can't imagine Libby telling that kind of lie. If Libby knows Russert is lying then Russert could be in for a long hard ride come deposition and trial time.

I for one don't think Libby is lying. I think Russert is. The question is can Libby prove it. That depends on how much Cheney is willing to do to save Libby. I would bet a lot.

Did anyone but me notice how much Fitzgeralds voice shook at his press conference. He did not sound like a man who is sure of himself. He sounded like a man who just bet his rump on a weak bet.

This is going to get interesting as the trail apporoaches.