Posted on 11/17/2005 5:10:51 AM PST by veronica
You're thinking along the same lines as I am. I don't trust Woodward, and I don't trust his motives in coming out at this particular time with this story.
Fitzmas case appears to be unraveling in a very public and obvious manner, so I think he'll be forced into an uncomfortable position. Woodward cannot be ignored. And I feel sure that Libby's lawyers will be able to take full advantage of these recent revelations.
How about, "If the facts aren't right, you should not indict."
The only thing I trust is that Woodward is probably shopping a book deal.
First, he's not being charged with leaking info. However, even if you have classified info...if it becomes public you can talk about it (in regards to the public article).
For example, the Chinese Spies we just caught. Intel officers knew about this before it hit the newpapers. They can't talk about it. Once it's out they can talk about what was in the paper, but can't comment on if it's accurate or if there's more/less there that meets the eye.
And if Woodward told Libby before the CIA inquiry?
But as I understand it, this would add credence to Libby's claim that he heard about this from another source, perhaps a member of the media.
I don't think it's Rove, neither does the left but they love the idea.
You have it right. Fitzgerald pissed a way a lot of money, found nothing, the media had cranked itself up looking to celebrate a great victory and Fitz had to give them something. He gave them Libby. Its all a farce and has been since the beginning and Personally I think its the Bush haters in the CIA that started the whole thing.
I'm sure you are correct about Rove being honest about this. But, since when has that stopped the left from making accusations, however false they might be? Don't we hear "Bush lied!" just about every day? Haven't we all heard the rumblings about impeachment--even though we (most of us on FR at least) know he never did anything even remotely impeachable?
My concern with this is that Woodward might be willing to lie if it helps bring the Bush admin down, person by person. They really WANTED Rove, and they've been puting ever since he wasn't indicted. And if Woodward goes into court and lies through his teeth, I'm concerned that he'll be believed by enough people that they'll get their way.
If Woodward's right, you can't indict.
Irrelevant. But the evidence shows the opposite. Fitz says Libby was inquiring of the CIA on June 11 & 14; Woodward says his first contacts (you know hwat I mean, not literally first ever) with Libby were June 23 & 27, and even then, he has no recollection of discussion Plame w/Libby, and his notes show no reference that he discussed Plame with Libby.
The entire bruhaha over the Woodward revelation is that Libby didn't out plame, but the Libby indictment is not an outing indictment, it is a false testimony and false statement indictment.
What I am saying is that Fitz might say Libby should ought to have told investigators how he got Plame's information through the CIA etc. and not from a reporter. It goes to obstruction of justice etc.
But don't get me wrong here! What Woodward did was huge and I really think Libby got wacked in public for no good reason. If I was Libby and managed to have the charges dropped I would sue the government for a malicious prosecution.
"Can anyone come up with a one liner similar to "If the glove don't fit you must acquit" using the word indict?"
Had this come to light, Fitzgerald could not indict!
It may cause reasonable doubt with a jury.
It appears Wilson and Plame were being discussed amongst many people and at different times. Woodward admits that he may have mentioned to Libby that Wilson and Plame were married, but says definitely Libby didn't mention it to him. Since all of these discussions were taking place at or about the same time, it is believable that Libby could have been mistaken in his memory about where he first heard it, or he was correct in that he did in fact hear it first from a reporter. It is not lying if you believe what you say is the truth. There is also the possibility Russert (Andrea Mitchell's boss) was suffering from a mistaken memory. It is up to Fitzgerald to prove Libby deliberately lied in his statements and this hurts his case.
IMO, Fitzgerald made a huge mistake in the press conference by blocking himself in with his statements.
If Woodward knew Plame, Scooter can't take the blame.
LOL--now that is something about Woodward I can trust, too!
That means precisely nothing. The entire indictment accuses Libby of lying to prosecutors about what he told reporters. Libby says he told reporters that he heard about Plame from other reporters. Woodward now qualifies as one of those "other reporters", so Libby's testimony looks to be true.
>> Chris Matthews was deeply, deeply disappointed last night on Screwball.
Haven't watched it in years thanks to Chris' nightly tantrums but you have to love the irony of one of the lib media's patron Watergate saints being involved in a way that might destroy the whole house of (marked) cards they have built up.
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.