Replies

Its basically Libby's word against Russert, Cooper and Miller. That seems to be what the documents say. It was Libby's comments to them and how he reported said comments in testimony. Comes down to he learned her name from Cheney, so every time in testimony he said he heard her name from others, in his recalling talks with russert, cooper and miller, he is being charged with telling a lie. THough its one lie several times, supposedly. All he had to do was tell the truth. Me thinks Rove is being investigated for saying Plame's name was public, thats why its ongoing.

Its basically Libby's word against Russert, Cooper and Miller. That seems to be what the documents say.

But what we don't know is if there are other witnesses who have testified to the grand jury that back up the reporters' versions. A whole lot of presidential and vice presidential aides were called before the grand jury. Some of them may have been in the room when Libby was talking on the phone and gave testimony about what he said that differs from Libby's own testimony. Or they may have testified about their conversations with Libby that differ from what Libby told the grand jury. Finally, what if some of the conversations Libby had with reporters and other aides were taped! I imagine that would be some pretty solid evidence should it come to "he said/she said."

Its basically Libby's word against Russert, Cooper and Miller.

You are only half right. As I read the indictment, the prosecutor has alleged, and must prove, two things--

1. That Libby's statements to the FBI investigators were not true--i.e. that he in fact "put out" the information that Plame worked for the CIA, rather than confirming that information in response to their questions;

On this issue, it is Libby's word against Russert, Miller, and Cooper's.

and

2. That Libby made the untrue statements with the intent of misleading the investigators/grand jury.

In other words, it will be a complete defense to all the charges, and require Libby's acquittal, if the jury concludes that there is a reasonable possibility that Libby's recollection of the events, although confused and erroneous, was sincere.

Therefore, this is not just a he said/she said case. It will require the jury to conclude what was going on in Libby's mind. I personally think it is going to be very difficult for the prosecutor to prove these charges "beyond a resonable doubt."

> Its basically Libby's word against Russert, Cooper and Miller.

Except that Libby had means and motive to out Plame. Let's not fall into complete denial. Accept that it is at least a possibility that Libby took a "bullet" for the administration by outing Plame and nailing that dirtball Wilson in his tracks.