Replies

I bet the people in his office are scrambling to make everything fit. But to make everything fit might require a complete rewrite.

Nothing in Woodward's testimony changes the Libby indictment.

Woodward's full text statement ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/plame/woodward.plameCIA.pdf

Not directly. But one reason for BELIEVING that Libby is wrong and the reporters are right, is that up till now the reporters were all on record saying they did NOT tell Libby.

But now Woodward is on record, with this statement:

When asked by Fitzgerald if it was possible I told Libby I knew Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and was involved in his assignment, I testified that it was possible"

There is a reason Fitzgerald asked that question, and it seems it has to be to eliminate Woodward as the possible "source" of truth for Libby's statements to other reporter that he had heard her name from a reporter. But Woodward said it was possible he told Libby, and he has testified that woodward DID know her name, and had it on his desk, when he was asking Libby.

Now it's much more of a "he-said/she-said". Libby has a reporter who might have told him, and Libby says he told other reporters he HEARD it from a reporter. Those reporters don't REMEMBER Libby telling him that.

But, Pinkus says he doesn't REMEMBER Woodward telling him it either, and WOODWARD testified under oath that he DID tell Pinkus.

So Libby has an involved reporter (Pinkus) who says Woodward didn't tell him, and Woodward saying he did. Which is EXACTLY what Libby is saying about himself -- that LIBBY told two reporters, but they both say he didn't.

In other words, The Woodward/Pinkus situation is exactly like the Libby/Miller and Libby/Cooper situation -- a difference of recollection. Now that Libby can establish reasonable doubt that he DID hear the information from a reporter, things look better for him.