Replies

But his answers were dependent on the timeframe in question.

Yes. True.

Of course at some point he knew for a fact that Plame worked for the CIA.

The indictment says that timeframe is June 11-14 (FWIW, Woordward asserts his first meeting with Libby that MIGHT have broached this subject, but Woordward's notes and protocol lean toward "no discussion," was June 23 (talk) and June 27 (meet)).

In Libby's statement, during the timeframe in question, he had at that time only heard rumors from reporters, as opposed to having known about it already through his government clearance.

That is what he told investigators, "I only heard it from reporters, and didn't know it as a matter of fact." His timing confusion, in order to win at trial, has to be between "looking it up" himself and hearing it as rumor from reporters. But even that is tough, because he seems to have withheld from investigators that he even bothered to look it up for himself. His testimony (as painted in the indictment) is that the -only- sources ofhis information during the timeframe in question was reporters, and in fact, THEY told HIM, and that's the only way he learned.

That is what he told investigators, "I only heard it from reporters, and didn't know it as a matter of fact."

Good grief, get your facts straight. That is not what he told investigators, it is what he told Matt Cooper. His descriptions to investigators about his conversation is accurate. The only real "lie" alleged in the indictment is Libby's testimony about Russert, which is easily explained if Libby confused Russert with Woodward, or Russert is lying himself. (My money is on Russert's lies)

Fitzgerald has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Libby intentionally set out to deceive prosecutors and the grand jury when he confused names and dates a year after the fact. Woodward's testimony has created an insurmountable reasonable doubt for Fitzgerald's case.

The very premise Fitzgerald's case is build on has been discredited, and not in an insignificant way. A decent lawyer could easily use that to create reasonable doubt for all the charges in the case. The fact that Fitzgerald's very premise is flawed throws into question his own credibility as a prosecutor and the charges that he has brought.