[MarcusTulliusCicero]

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.

[BlueStateDepression]

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' ;)

[Political Junkie Too]

I don't think you're getting my point, that Libby would not have made contradictory statements if Woodward spoke up, or allowed himself to be subpoenaed. People knew things but kept quiet, and so the investigation went in a direction that it might not have if the original information holders would only have spoken in a timely manner. I agree that it's not about outing Plame, it's about whether Libby heard it from a reporter or told a reporter. It seems to me that Fitzgerald thinks Libby lied because Fitzgerald could find no reporter who says he told Libby, therefore Libby lied when he said he heard it from a reporter instead of telling a reporter. Now Woodward is saying that he might have told Libby.

You're saying that it doesn't matter?

-PJ