I get your point that Libby's case, assuming it goes to court, will be narrowly defined, focused on the discrepancies between his interviews, under-oath-testimony and others' interviews and testimonies.
But it also seems that his lawyer will have a potent argument if he can show the court that many other witnesses, especially reporters, who make their living by collecting and dispersing 'accurate' information, have similar discrepancies in their interviews and testimonies.
All of this confusion and noise is going to make it very difficult to show wilfull obstruction or lying/perjury 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'
I'm not a lawyer, but I did sleep in a Holiday Inn once...
Pinz
Only if their discrepencies occurred under oath. It remains to be seen how it will play out in court, but my original point was that Woodward's admission of his knowledge does not change in any way Libby's alleged discrepencies about his conversations with Russert, Miller or Cooper. I think the central point will probably be that White House documents contradict his claim of uncertainty about Plame's status. Now, if Libby had been actually charged with outing her, then, yes, Woodward's testimony would have collapsed the case.