Posted on 11/16/2005 11:20:59 AM PST by Pikamax
Joe was "surprised". Really?? He talked to Novak two days before about it and knew what Novak was going to say more or less.
Wouldn't that be a trip if Woodward said, "Yeah, I might have told Libby she was CIA."
http://www.washingtonian.com/inwashington/buzz/pincus.html
Hans Blix? hmmmm....
Yep, and even Novak would think that is funny. Woodward is the guy who was spreading the rumors.
And the funniest part about it is that Woodward was Deep Throat in the Pflame outting. ROTFLMAO.
Again, it wouldn't apply in this case since it is independent of the original allegations. Libby is indicted with nothing other than giving conflicting statements. It doesn't matter to the prosecution whether or not they were in regard to Valerie Plame or to what he had for breakfast. That's why whether or not, or rather, exactly when Woodward knew about Plame is irrelevant to Libby's charges. It IS relevant in regard to whether or not Libby or Rove or whomever actually outed her, but again, that isn't what Libby is charged with doing.
Please forgive a dumb question here. But, if this case ends up getting thrown out soon or if Libby is exonerated soon, is there any chance Libby will get his job back? Or would that not be the right thing to do to the guy who replaced him? This whole thing just sickens me.
Status quo...IMO.
I might also point out than Ann Pincus was an official in the Clinton State Department......Bureau of Intelligence and Research.
In order to make that claim, he'd have to be able to demonstrate that other people not only made contradictory claims but did it under oath. Doing it in the press doesn't count for diddly. If he did make such a claim, I assume he'd have to demonstrate where others made similar contradictions under oath - which he couldn't do since the Grand Jury testimony would presumably still be sealed. Also you're assuming that the judge would let him try to even make the argument in the first place.
now wait a second here. Fitzy said Libby WAS the beinging of the issue. That he in fact was the FIRST to "leak" the indentity to journalists.
If what Woodward is saying is true, sure looks like he got that wrong. In regards to the 'lie' Libby told is it not possible that he said Russert when it was Woodward that said something to him and he simply erred in memory?
When is Andrea Mitchell gonna speak up?
Oh, the irony! Woodward is the Deeper Throat!
Joe diGenova just ripped Fitzgerald a new a-hole. Joe stated that Justice Department rules require that if a key fact that a Prosecutor bases his case on proves out to be false, the Prosecutor is required to determine if it causes a reasonable doubt on the case...and if so, the charges must be withdrawn. In Fitz's press conference, he states as a key fact that Libby was the first one to discuss Plame to a reporter. So Fitz was saying there was no way Libby could have heard of Plame from a reporter. Now, with Woodward's testimony, we know that at least one reporter knew of Plame before Libby spoke with a reporter about it. In fact Woodward had on a question list for Libby in June to ask about Wilson's wife. Woodward can not recall if he asked Libby, but Woodward's notes show that Libby did NOT bring up Plame with him.
Woodward's testimony has a huge impact on Fitzgerald's claims and case.
But he isn't charged with anything relating to the link. He is only being charged with giving contradictory statements under oath and that is what the trial will be limited to. Many FReepers were also assuming that Plame and Wilson would be called to the stand, but unless they are the ones providing the evidence that he gave contradictory statements under oath, their testimony (and for that matter, Plame's covert status) is irrelevant. That was one reason for the outrage about these particular charges - i.e. they do not address the original issues that Fitzgerald was investigating but only stem from Libby possibly trying to cover himself during Grand Jury testimony.
"Well, Joseph diGenova was just on with Brit Hume saying the exact same thing I did. He said Fitzgerald has a duty under DOJ rules to go back and "recalibrate" all the indictments because their "underpinning" is destroyed with the Woodward revelation."
AMEN!
And Joe diGenova also stated that Fitz will have to drop the charges against Libby!
HOOOOOORAAAAAAAAY!
Sigh....you all really have to actually read the indictment and not just press accounts of it. It is independent of whether or not Plame was or was not covert. It all deals with contradictory statements under oath. Even if both claims were false he still has a case.
Actually, she was no longer covered because she had not been undercover for 5 years which is why Libby was not indicted for breaking that particular law.
But a central claim made by fitzy was that libby was lying cuz he WAS the first to 'leak' it. That being proven false (providing Woodward Already knew and it wasn't libby that told him) What exactly did he "lie" about?
I would offer that this new tidbit (along with others since indictment day by vallale and mitchel) out to be further investigated. I think it will be.....kinda goes to the statement by Fitzy that the investigation was still open.
Novak's source would help things out alot! I wish that would be 'leaked' ;)
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.