And, Fitzgerald's report doesn't point out that the ONLY proper response from Libby to Russert's question was to deny he knew that, because if he confirmed it, then he WOULD be guilty of divulging classified information!
So if I know it, but you don't KNOW that I know it........
Russert has to be a big-time witness in the Libby trial.
Look for the LSM to start downplaying the Libby situation, paving the way for it to quietly go away before they all get snared up in it.
All the MSM rant is about WH people being called to the trial, I wonder what reaction they will have when half the Washington pressitutes are called as witnesses, and 99.9% of them plead the 5th.
Fitzgerald's report may want to plant that seed, but the indictment doesn't depend on that at all.
Libby could have told investigators that he knew Plame worked at the CIA, and that he told Russert, Cooper and Miller that Plame worked at the CIA. In fact, the indictment asserts that - but guess what, no crime! Libby didn't disclose classified information, or out a covert agent.
He didn't want to admit telling reporters (but he should have admitted that), because doing so would be spun like a political dirty trick. Well, that water is over the dam - it is being spun. But the dicussions with reporters were perfectly legal.
Mitchell's "widely known" characterization flatly contradicts assertions last Friday by Leakgate Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, who repeatedly insisted that Plame's association with the CIA "was not widely known."<<
Fitzgerald has indicted his ham sandwich, now a defense can be presented. No one was indicted for outing Valley Girl Val. Maybe because no one could, she was already out.
DK