Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: MarcusTulliusCicero
Yes, but here's the rub on Libby. Libby is being charged with having lied about hearing about Plame first from reporters. If Woodward told Libby early on that could cast considerable reasonable doubt.

And since everyone seems to be confused about who said what (Especially the reporters) the Russert falsehood doesn't look so bad. After all the same thing happened to Pincus.

I don't know, I think the Libby case has been weakened on the perjury, false statement, and obstruction charges.
168 posted on 11/16/2005 3:50:59 PM PST by Patriot from Philly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies ]


To: Patriot from Philly

In the indictment, Libby is being charge mainly with claiming Russert mentioned Plame to him first. Then, according to Libby, he mentioned it to Cooper and to Miller, but said he personally wasn't sure of her status. White House documents apparently show that to be false. Also, the specificity of the rebuttal of the Russert claim hints that either Russert recorded the conversation which would probably be inadmissable, or that someone else was listening in and confirmed the testimony. That would seem to be the strongest part of the indictment just from simple reading of it. The material part of the perjury would seem to stem from Libby claiming that he didn't know Plame's status for sure when apparently multiple sources demonstrate he was well aware of it since he had been investigating Wilson and Plame as part of his duties as the VP's Chief of Staff since people were making claims against Cheney.


255 posted on 11/16/2005 8:28:35 PM PST by MarcusTulliusCicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson