[Political Junkie Too]

I don't think you're getting my point, that Libby would not have made contradictory statements if Woodward spoke up, or allowed himself to be subpoenaed. People knew things but kept quiet, and so the investigation went in a direction that it might not have if the original information holders would only have spoken in a timely manner. I agree that it's not about outing Plame, it's about whether Libby heard it from a reporter or told a reporter. It seems to me that Fitzgerald thinks Libby lied because Fitzgerald could find no reporter who says he told Libby, therefore Libby lied when he said he heard it from a reporter instead of telling a reporter. Now Woodward is saying that he might have told Libby.

You're saying that it doesn't matter?

-PJ

[MarcusTulliusCicero]

I am saying that it has no bearing on the case with reference to what Libby is charged with. The Washington Post article on it also admits now that it doesn't materially change the case against Libby but that the defense will try to use it to cast doubt. It may work or it may not, but the perjury and obstruction charges deal with Libby's conduct during the investigation, not with the underlying investigation of who disclosed Plame's identity first. So, whether or not Woodward knew or not doesn't help Libby's case especially since Libby claimed he didn't know for sure what Plame's status was at the time. How does it help him that other people may have known? It does nothing to change the contradictory statements he gave to the Grand Jury regarding his own knowledge of her status.