"But, again IMO, the indictment is strong on its face as a matter of legal principle and simple logic; and Woodward's disclosure doesn't alter the analysis of whether or not the charges in the indictment are valid."
So in other words, the seriousness of the charge trumps the lack of material or testimonial evidence in this matter. Of course, logic DOES in fact dictate that Woodward's disclosure UTTERLY alters the anlysis of the indictment's validity.
For all your self-congratulatory wordsmithing, you are unable to change your spots.
Huh? Where did I congratulate myself?
... in other words, the seriousness of the charge trumps the lack of material or testimonial evidence in this matter.
I'm not rendering an opinion as to the truth of completeness of the evidence offered. But if the facts are as set forth in the indictment, I think the case for false statements is valid and strong.
Of course, logic DOES in fact dictate that Woodward's disclosure UTTERLY alters the anlysis of the indictment's validity.
I disagree, and have attempted to show why I disagree. In short, I disagree because I think the guts of the prosecutor's assertion is that Libby didn't tell prosecutors that he knew for a fact that Plame worked for the CIA. Instead, Libby tried to paint himself as just another Joe in the rumor mill. With the charge being of that nature, it matters not whether the other players knew of Plame from other sources, from Libby, or even if everybody but Libby knew before "the story" started cooking in the press.