Posted on 11/17/2005 2:49:48 AM PST by The Raven
Bob Woodward's just-released statement, suggesting that on June 27, 2003, he may have been the reporter who told Scooter Libby about Joseph Wilson's wife, blew a gigantic hole in Patrick Fitzgerald's recently unveiled indictment of the vice president's former chief of staff.
While that indictment did not charge Mr. Libby with outing a CIA covert operative, it alleged that he lied to investigators and the grand jury. As we have stated earlier on this page -- and unlike many conservative voices then -- we believe perjury is always a serious offense (even in a political setting). And if sufficient evidence exists to support a conviction, then Mr. Fitzgerald's indictment of Mr. Libby was fully warranted.
However, the heart of his perjury theory was predicated upon the proposition that Mr. Libby learned of Valerie Plame's identity from other government officials and not from NBC's Tim Russert, ...
--snip
However, given Mr. Woodward's account, which came to light after the Libby indictment was announced, that he met with Mr. Libby in his office -- armed with the list of questions, which explicitly referenced "yellowcake" and "Joe Wilson's wife" and may have shared this information during the interview -- it is entirely possible that Mr. Libby may have indeed heard about Mrs. Plame's employment from a reporter. ...
--snip Accordingly, Mr. Fitzgerald should do the right thing and promptly dismiss the indictment of Scooter Libby.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Woodward stated that he did not want to get subpoenaed because he was working on a book at the time.
Understatement of the year award...
The relevant parts of the indictment have been reproduced for the lurkers, with a link so they can check whether or not I have misrepresented the indictment.
... if Libby had heard about Plame from Woodward, his testimony and statements in 26 and 32 are true.
32.b contains what the prosecutor says is a MATERIALLY FALSE statement by Libby, to wit ...
b. LIBBY advised Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on or about July 12, 2003, that he had heard that other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, and further advised him that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true;
Having heard anything from Woodward, at any time, would not change the nature of that assertion by the prosecutor, in fact, it would bolster it, as Libby is saying he heard from other reporters.
I doubt that it was Ari Fleischer, since the person is question is so often called a senior official. But I guess it is possible.
I guess it's also possible, maybe even more possible, that it is the same under secretary of state who allegedly told Libby.
I'm surprised at how little attention that person has gotten. I'm not even sure who it is. I see that it is largely assumed to be Grossman.
But then again, if it were the under secretary of state, why wouldn't he have told Fitz earlier -- unless he just remembered.
I also wonder if the person who talked to Woodward wasn't also Novak's source. Remember, he said we would be surprised at how it is. Which also makes me think it may turn out to be Powell.
He certainly is "no partisan gunslinger." And some say he is close to Woodward. (Don't ask me why.)
Regardless of whether Libby knew from the CIA about Valerie and Joe, if Rove told Libby that he got a strange call from Cooper, Cooper IS the source of the rumor, not Rove or the CIA.
"b. LIBBY advised Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on or about July 12, 2003, that he had heard that other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA"
If Woodward told Libby, then this is true.
"...and further advised him that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true"
It is quite telling that Fitz has indicted Libby for not confirming or denying classified information to a reporter. Libby was doing what you are supposed to do under such circumstances.
The indictment actually says that Cooper asked Libby (not told him) about Plame, and that Libby responded without qualification that Plame worked for the CIA, according to Cooper. Libby testified he responded to Cooper's question by saying he heard about Plame from other reporters, which is bolstered by Woodward now. Woowdward says he might have told Libby.
Only two people in the world know what was actually said between Cooper and Libby. But there is no way that they can convict Libby for obstruction, false statements, or perjury about the Cooper testimony since there is obvious reasonable doubt.
Cooper claims that Rove told him about Plame. Not the other way around.
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
Fitzy should drop the whole thing now and apologise to Libby.
"Libby was that there was someone in the White House named "Scooter"."
If I had Lexis-Nexus I would check to see how many times Libby was called "Scooter" in the press before this fatwah was issued by the DNC.
I would bet not at all.
What you and #3 poster fail to note is the fact Woodward DID NOT come through with this revelation until a high admin official talked to Fitz and told him he had told Woodward.
Woodward would probably have kept his mouth shut.
Now just how is Woodward lying to protect Libby?
"[32]b. LIBBY advised Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on or about July 12, 2003, that he had heard that other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA"
If Woodward told Libby, then this is true.
Not necessarily. An alternative is that LIBBY did NOT tell Cooper that he had heard from reporters. This is geting repetitive, but paragraph 33 recites what the prosecutor alleges is the truth of the matter:
[33] b. LIBBY did not advise Matthew Cooper, on or about July 12, 2003, that LIBBY had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise him that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true; rather, LIBBY confirmed to Cooper, without qualification, that LIBBY had heard that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA;
It is quite telling that Fitz has indicted Libby for not confirming or denying classified information to a reporter. Libby was doing what you are supposed to do under such circumstances.
Libby's indictment has nothing to do with lying to reporters. He is free to lie to reporters all he wants. That is perfectly legal.
Good point. The entire indictment hinges on three things:
1. Cooper's account of the conversation is true, that Libby told him Plame was CIA without qualification.
2. Libby lied when he testified that he told Cooper he had heard about Plame from reporters. But Libby's testimony is even more likely since Woodward's revelation that he knew about Plame months before the Novak article and may have told Libby about her.
3. Libby did not confuse Russert with Woodward and Russert is telling the truth. The Russert telling the truth part is the most difficult to believe.
At best, Fitzgerald only has Cooper's word against Libby's and Russert's word against Libby's. And it's all about conversations that took place where both parties could remember things differently. This case against Libby has holes in it big enough to drive a truck through. Fitzgerald should drop the charges.
ROSE COLORED GLASSES!
A year? Your calendar is different from the one most of the US uses then.
Woodward's testimony has created an insurmountable reasonable doubt for Fitzgerald's case.
Sell it to the jury. I'm not buying it. Woodward's participation, as described in his letter this week, is irrelevant to the case as presented. It is useful as a smokescreen, for those who are amenable to distraction.
The very premise Fitzgerald's case is build on has been discredited ...
Oh? And what might that premise be?
Fitzgerald's premise that Libby could not have learned about Plame from reporters is discredited by the Woodward revelation.
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.