Posted on 11/17/2005 2:49:48 AM PST by The Raven
Bob Woodward's just-released statement, suggesting that on June 27, 2003, he may have been the reporter who told Scooter Libby about Joseph Wilson's wife, blew a gigantic hole in Patrick Fitzgerald's recently unveiled indictment of the vice president's former chief of staff.
While that indictment did not charge Mr. Libby with outing a CIA covert operative, it alleged that he lied to investigators and the grand jury. As we have stated earlier on this page -- and unlike many conservative voices then -- we believe perjury is always a serious offense (even in a political setting). And if sufficient evidence exists to support a conviction, then Mr. Fitzgerald's indictment of Mr. Libby was fully warranted.
However, the heart of his perjury theory was predicated upon the proposition that Mr. Libby learned of Valerie Plame's identity from other government officials and not from NBC's Tim Russert, ...
--snip
However, given Mr. Woodward's account, which came to light after the Libby indictment was announced, that he met with Mr. Libby in his office -- armed with the list of questions, which explicitly referenced "yellowcake" and "Joe Wilson's wife" and may have shared this information during the interview -- it is entirely possible that Mr. Libby may have indeed heard about Mrs. Plame's employment from a reporter. ...
--snip Accordingly, Mr. Fitzgerald should do the right thing and promptly dismiss the indictment of Scooter Libby.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
This was the original post, hot shot:
"Fitzgerald has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Libby intentionally set out to deceive prosecutors and the grand jury when he confused names and dates a year after the fact."
"A year? Your calendar is different from the one most of the US uses then."
+++++++
Libby didn't appear before the prosecutors and Grand Jury until March.
You're moving the goal posts. That is sophistry, hot shot.
Leni
How in the world is anybody going to prove that Libby made false statements? The only thing Fitzgerald has got now that Woodward finally admitted his role is a reporter's word against Libby. Reasonable doubt is all over the place in this.
When you read anything about Bob Woodward you have to keep in mind that he has the best connections to the Intelligence Community of any Washington reporter. If anyone knew about Valerie Plame early in the game it would be Woodward.
I agree with the WT.
FREE SCOOTER LIBBY.
"I'd sue the crap out of Woodward, Mitchell, et al."
Don't worry, Fitzgerald is going to bring obstruction of justice charges against Woodward.
(I'm kidding of course.)
Does this mean the testimony itself may be factual?
"Woodward always saw the case as about nothing more than Washington gossip. He didn't want to be involved."
Can you blame him? Look what happened to Judith Miller she went to jail and lost her job over this nothingness.
The whole thing is just an example of the complete meltdown of the left, the dem party, and the MSM.
I have a feeling Libby's attys are really going to go for blood if SP does not dismiss. They will use the old smear the prosecutor over and over.
LOL... This is really going to play well at DUh.
The DEMS tried to use the WMD issue against Bush, even though that was not the reason we went to war.
They pursued it because they could not fault the true reasons.
They made it law that the next President was to fulfill removing Saddam from power. It is a matter of record. (being ignored, of course, by the DEMS)
Then Joe Wilson tried to offer his help, which they accepted.
Problem is, Joe has a little problem of his own.
Both times Wilson 'spyed' for the CIA (once under Clinton, once under Bush), he was going to Niger on BUSINESS.
He owns a company that was in NIGER doing business.
WHAT BUSINESS was that company in?
Brokering of the sales of yellowcake between the President of Niger and Saddam.
The Dems are covering for the fact that Joe's company brokered the sales that Joe came back and said didn't happen.
Then the 'fake' documents were put in place to cover for Joe's 'business'.
JOE LIED, AMERICANS DIED.
Joe Wilson, his wife, and his ex-wife need to be brought up on charges of treason.
No. It's the prosecutor's assertion that Libby was.
It'll be up to the jury to decide between the prosecutor and Libby, which one has misrepresented the evidence.
Ah yes, but Woodward knew a month earlier and told Pincus about it. Pincus is a "journalist", and remember Andrea Mitchell said on TV that everyone knew. It's likely that Libby could have heard about Plame's employment through the rumor mill and that is why he called the CIA and asked the question, or perhaps he didn't even put the knowledge together at the time, it was just something he heard from someone, somewhere and didn't penetrate until he heard from the CIA that she was behind sending Wilson to Niger.
The thing is, remembering the sequence of events that took place a couple of years ago is very, very hard.
We can read something on this forum and forget the name of the article, but you still remember reading it. The thing is, sometimes it takes something to trigger that fact, like another article stating the same thing, or something completely opposite.
FITZGERALD: He was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter. And then he lied about it afterwards, under oath and repeatedly.Woodward's testimony has blown a hole in the very foundation of events presented by Fitzgerald, and Libby's lawyers will drive a truck through it.
When the Post runs a story demanding Libby be cleared, I will be impressed.
And why would Russert lie, other than the fact that admitting to telling Libby would destroy Russert's career.
It's not like reporters make a habit of testifying falsely under oath, like Miller forgetting about a meeting for which she later produced notes, or Pincus denying hearing about Plame from Woodward. Or mitchell knowing about Plame before she didn't know.
With paragons of virtue like these in the press, it will be difficult to establish reasonable doubt at a trial.
LOL! Lemme add a /sarc
The indictment endeavors to explain the timing of Libby's interest.
The thing is, remembering the sequence of events that took place a couple of years ago is very, very hard.
There is more than a "sequence" issue. I agree, if all you hear is rumors floating around work or school, after awhile you forget where you heard it first. But you tend not to forget if you deliberately start the rumor (not saying Libby was the only or the first to spread the information, but he may have thought he was!); or if you have gone to the record and looked it up yourself.
Libby looked it up by calling the CIA. Libby had authoritative knowledge. The indictment paints a picture that Libby hid from investigators, that Libby had authoritative knowledge. He ahs to have forgotten seeking authoritative knowledge of his own initiative.
Plonk.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.