[Labyrinthos]

That's nice, except Libby isn't charged with leaking the information, but rather, he was charged with lying to prosecutors and the DA about something that wasn't a crime in the first place. The fact that someone else might have leaked the name is irrelevant.

[Mr. Brightside]

I agree.

I don't see the significance of Woodward claiming he got the same information from another administration source.

[Dane]

That's nice, except Libby isn't charged with leaking the information, but rather, he was charged with lying to prosecutors and the DA about something that wasn't a crime in the first place. The fact that someone else might have leaked the name is irrelevant

Uh wrong this puts cyclops fitz's timeline all wrong and Libby's defense attorneys will have a field day pointing that out.

[Jaidyn]

Fitzgerals isn't so stupid as to realize the American people will be up in arms over perjury charges to a case that is really a non-case. If there was no leak, then, how can Libby be indicted for lying? All it comes down to is a case about a person getting the dates wrong. It's too obvious that Libby didn't out anyone, so why would he cover-up something that never existed in the first place?

[veronica]

I think it speaks to the fact that Libby's recollections might honestly be muddled, that he didn't lie under oath, and that this whole case in fact is a muddle. And to evoke an old quote, where does Libby go to get his reputation back? Not just among Democrats and the MSM, but others who have attacked him viciously?

[McGavin999]

That's nice, except Libby isn't charged with leaking the information, but rather, he was charged with lying to prosecutors and the DA about something that wasn't a crime in the first place. The fact that someone else might have leaked the name is irrelevant.

Then how did he lie when the media knew before anyone in Libby's office knew. It means he could well have learned about her from a reporter first.

[Cboldt]

I've about reached the point of arguing with people about what the indictment stands for. Most posters here are convinced that the entire case boils down to reporters' word v. Libby, or some variation on a timeline theme.

Persistently overlooked is Libby's decision to independently inquire of the CIA and obtaining of authoritative knowledge, in adavance of conversations with reporters, and in advance of his statements and testimony.

[for-q-clinton]

Woodward also says he may have told Libby the name, but can't remember if he did. So we drag the most famous reporter to court have him say he can't recall and he may be mistaken. Then ask if he thinks he should be charged for perjury. Everyone laughs and then the jury realizes that's the same thing Libby is being accused of, so they won't convict him.

[MizSterious]

True for Libby, but we should also remember the other part of Woodward's story--that he supposedly heard about Plame from another "highly placed" official in the admin. What official? Are they gunning for Rove again, or have they set their sites on Cheney now? I don't trust this development at all.

[zook]

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.

[jennyjenny]

Independent counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has claimed that Libby was the first official to blow Valerie Plame Wilson's cover and he lied to conceal his role — resulting in perjury charges, even though Libby isn't accused of outing an agent.

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.

[Catphish]

The most important part of a perjury prosecution is showing motive and intent. Showing that testimony is factually inaccurate is the easy part - you have to show that the witness knowingly lied and had a reason for doing so. Woodward's testimony goes a long way in undercutting that part of the government's case.

[Always Right]

That's nice, except Libby isn't charged with leaking the information, but rather, he was charged with lying to prosecutors and the DA about something that wasn't a crime in the first place.

I disagree. Libby story was that this was widely known amoung reporters and he heard it from reporters first. This backs up that story. Now the only 'lie' is that Libby heard it from Woodward instead of Russert. Prosecuting someone for making that mistake during testimony would be beyond ridiculous.

[Jack Black]

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?

[Mike Darancette]

The fact that someone else might have leaked the name is irrelevant.

People don't understand what happened here. Fitzgerald's theory of the case is that Libby was the FIRST leaker to the press so when Libby told the FBI and the Grand Jury that, he Libby, heard about Plame from a reporter it must be perjury.

Woodward now says he knew about Plame from other sources prior to Libby's alleged leaking, Woodward goes farther by admitting he may have discussed Plame with Libby prior to Libby's alleged leakings.

It may come down as to whether Libby confused Russert and Woodward on the telephone and whether such confusion is punishable by 30 years in jail.

[bitty]

The "lie" he told was that a reporter told him Plane worked for the CIA. Now Woodward is saying he could have told him Plane worked foer the CIA. So they did not catch him in a lie.

[HapaxLegamenon]

That's nice, except Libby isn't charged with leaking the information, but rather, he was charged with lying to prosecutors and the DA about something that wasn't a crime in the first place. The fact that someone else might have leaked the name is irrelevant.

Except when the "lie" he is accused of making (i.e. reporters told him about Plame) isn't a lie.

[huck von finn]

That's nice, except Libby isn't charged with leaking the information, but rather, he was charged with lying to prosecutors and the DA about something that wasn't a crime in the first place. The fact that someone else might have leaked the name is irrelevant.

True. This is just more speculation by the MSM. Since Fitzgerald isn't talking, they have to speculate each day in order to keep the story alive.

[HawaiianGecko]

	"Libby isn't charged with leaking the information, but rather, he was charged with lying to prosecutors and the DA about something that wasn't a crime in the first place." Not really IMHO. Basically Fitz said he found evidence that Libby learned about Plame prior to hearing it from one of only three reporters, therefore, he lied about learning it from a reporter. Woodward demonstrates that "hey, there are more than 3 reporters in the country and you haven't questioned all of them yet." A reporter may have told Libby in 2001... they have no legal obligation to come forth and testify. Basically this is a "it's cloudy, therefore it's raining" type of prosecution.  No matter how tight Fitzgerald's timeline is, he will never preclude the possibility that Libby heard this from a reporter.  All he can prove is that he knew prior to talking with Matt Cooper/Judith Miller and that's not a crime.

 

 

[Redmen4ever]

Libby is charged with misleading investigators, lying to the grand jury and obstructing justice because - according to the special prosecutor - he said things that were contradicted by things that were said by one or more of three reporters (it is not clear if the special prosecutor is saying that all three of these reporters contraverted Libby). Woodward's statement contradicts what one of these reporters (Chris Matthews) said.

At the very least, this indicates that the special prosecutor will not be able to establish a "preponderance of evidence" in favor of his case, no less "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

In addition, Woodward's statement may indicate that the special prosecutor abused his discretion bringing an indictment against Libby when it is equally likely that another person (Matthews) did all the things which Libby is alleged to have done, especially since it soon became clear that there was never an underlying crime to investigate.

[Eva]

No, it's not irrelevant because Woodward has said that he could have been the reporter who told Libby, indicating that Libby was not only not the first person to leak the name, but may have just had a faulty memory, regarding which reporter told him the information.