Except Libby's original claim was that he learned it from reporters, so thought it wasn't classified. The charge is that "he knew he learned it from 4 government employees in the weeks before his coversations with Judy Miller and others, he was lying when he said he learned it from these reporters, in fact HE TOLD THEM".
But now we see a different reporter knew about Plame a month before Libby was talking to anyone. Maybe Libby learned it from Woodward BEFORE all those pesky Fed Employees mentioned it to him. "I knew that, a reporter told me that" is now a much, much more plausible claim for Libby to make. It shoots the "timeline" that is the main evidence in Fitz's case.
Plus now that we know there is ONE MORE, are there TWO MORE or THREE MORE reporters who knew this, maybe even earlier than Woodward?
Maybe Libby learned it from Woodward BEFORE all those pesky Fed Employees mentioned it to him. Except Libby was told in late May/early June. Woodward wasnt told until mid June (when by testimony, Libby had heard from four different people). Libby did not speak to Woodward until June 23 and June 27.
"But now we see a different reporter knew about Plame a month before Libby was talking to anyone. Maybe Libby learned it from Woodward BEFORE all those pesky Fed Employees mentioned it to him. "I knew that, a reporter told me that" is now a much, much more plausible claim for Libby to make. It shoots the "timeline" that is the main evidence in Fitz's case."
Exactly!
Here is a possible scenario; Libby hears about Plame from a reporter. He goes to the proper channels to confirm it. Then talks to Miller, et al. In this case he did hear it first from a reporter. Could have been the day Wilson got picked to go. (Knowing the CIA it is entirely possible some reporter got a call the day the trip was suggested "Hey this is the NYT we hear Channey has asked the CIA to send some guy Wilson to Niger?".) In any trial Miller and that Time guy (whatshisname) and Russert get grilled. So does Mitchel and Woodward. Since they are major prosecution witnesses I would expect the judge would have to give wide leeway on the cross. (Any FR lawyers?)