NationStates Jolt Archive

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. I 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, as claimed by Mr. Libby. Indeed, Mr. Fitzgerald seemed to have a reasonable case because Mr. Russert, a respected and admired journalist, with no vested interest of his own, denied that he discussed the Mr. Wilson's matter with Mr. Libby.

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. Given the fact that the conversations in issue -- the one with Tim Russert and the one with Bob Woodward -- were separated by less than two weeks, and that officials like Mr. Libby juggle literally hundreds of matters on a daily basis, it is entirely plausible that he confused the two reporters. There certainly was no possible reason for him to mislead Mr. Fitzgerald on this issue, since the point he was trying to make, originally to the FBI investigators in October 2003, and later on to the grand jury, that Valerie Plame's identity was known to a reporter who imparted it to him was equally compelling, no matter what the identity of that reporter.

In light of these facts, it is at least doubtful whether a reasonable jury would find Mr. Libby guilty. Moreover, as argued by Washington lawyers David Rivkin and Lee Casey, under the U.S. Attorney's Manual provisions, no prosecution should be commenced unless the attorney representing the government believes that he has evidence that will probably be sufficient to obtain a conviction. Accordingly, Mr. Fitzgerald should do the right thing and promptly dismiss the indictment of Scooter Libby.

No, you tool--the heart of the case is predicated on the fact that Libby gave conflicting versions of his story to both federal investigators and the Grand Jury. God, you'll do anything to defend this administration. Woodward's story only adds another potential level to the conspiracy.

The grand jury already decided that it was not a crime to talk about Wilsons wife . For many reasons..among them the fact that it wasnt quite a secret .
Libby is charged with intentionally misleading the grand jury with his answers.
The fact that no crime was committed has no effect on the right to investegate and when you impede an investigation you are commiting a crime .

No, you tool--the heart of the case is predicated on the fact that Libby gave conflicting versions of his story to both federal investigators and the Grand Jury. God, you'll do anything to defend this administration. Woodward's story only adds another potential level to the conspiracy.

There's more to proving perjury than just giving conflicting versions of a story.
Obstruction of justice also requires "willful intent", which is more difficult to prove than you imagine.

As an example, if I say that I was at a certain place at a certain time, and I can be seen on video at another location at that time, the perjury is rather obvious.

If I give conflicting version of a story, however, I can claim that my memory was faulty, or that I was confused.

There's more to proving perjury than just giving conflicting versions of a story.
Obstruction of justice also requires "willful intent", which is more difficult to prove than you imagine.

As an example, if I say that I was at a certain place at a certain time, and I can be seen on video at another location at that time, the perjury is rather obvious.

If I give conflicting version of a story, however, I can claim that my memory was faulty, or that I was confused.

Given the fact that the conversations in issue -- the one with Tim Russert and the one with Bob Woodward -- were separated by less than two weeks, and that officials like Mr. Libby juggle literally hundreds of matters on a daily basis, it is entirely plausible that he confused the two reporters. There certainly was no possible reason for him to mislead Mr. Fitzgerald on this issue, since the point he was trying to make, originally to the FBI investigators in October 2003, and later on to the grand jury, that Valerie Plame's identity was known to a reporter who imparted it to him was equally compelling, no matter what the identity of that reporter.

WOW!!!!

Nice copy and paste!!!!!!!!! (http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20051116-100221-5614r.htm)

WOW!!!!

Nice copy and paste!!!!!!!!! (http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20051116-100221-5614r.htm)

You wouldn't have read it otherwise...

You wouldn't have read it otherwise...

Objection: Calls for a conclusion not in evidence.

OK Sierra,

So, explain to me how Woodward's possible mentioning of Plame to Libby on June 27th somehow preceeds the fact uncovered under testimony before the Grand Jury and included in the indictment that Libby first hear it from Cheney on June 12th?

Objection: Calls for a conclusion not in evidence.

OK Sierra,

So, explain to me how Woodward's possible mentioning of Plame to Libby on June 27th somehow preceeds the fact uncovered under testimony before the Grand Jury and included in the indictment that Libby first hear it from Cheney on June 12th?

Woodward knew of it before the 12th.

If Woodward knew of it before the 12th, then how could Libby have a motive to leak the name? If it had already been leaked by someone else, or accidentally spoken in conversation (Woodward's version of events)?

here.... from the indictment itself: (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf)


7. On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke with a senior officer of the CIA to ask about the origin and circumstances of Wilson’s trip, and was advised by the CIA officer that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip. 8. Prior to June 12, 2003, Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus contacted the Office of the Vice President in connection with a story he was writing about Wilson’s trip. LIBBY participated in discussions in the Office of the Vice President concerning how to respond to Pincus.

9. On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson’s wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA.


See, the reason why certain newspaper editorials are taken seriously (hence the request for linkage over and above the fact that it looks like cheap plagiarism) is pretty simple.

They suck.

Woodward knew of it before the 12th.

If Woodward knew of it before the 12th, then how could Libby have a motive to leak the name? If it had already been leaked by someone else, or accidentally spoken in conversation (Woodward's version of events)?


What does Woodward's knowledge have to do with what Libby is charged with? Regarding his mistruths about where he learned about Plame and about how he told reporters rather than them telling him?

Because Woodward MAY have talked to him about it on the 27s means that he didn't lie when he claimed that Cooper or Russert or whoever told him about it later? Despite the fact that it has been demonstrated that Cheney told him about it on the 12th?


Sorry - not following your chain of logic on this at all.....

here.... from the indictment itself: (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf)

See, the reason why certain newspaper editorials are taken seriously (hence the request for linkage over and above the fact that it looks like cheap plagiarism) is pretty simple.

They suck.

It's pretty hard to take Fitzgerald seriously. He obviously had no idea that Woodward knew, or the name of Woodward's source.

Fitzgerald isn't holding all the facts, and is likely to be blindsided in court.

Defending Libby against perjury is rather simple at this point, Obstruction of justice would be even easier to defend.

You would have to prove that Libby had intent. Intent in this case is nearly impossible to prove.

It's pretty hard to take Fitzgerald seriously. He obviously had no idea that Woodward knew, or the name of Woodward's source.

Fitzgerald isn't holding all the facts, and is likely to be blindsided in court.

Defending Libby against perjury is rather simple at this point, Obstruction of justice would be even easier to defend.

You would have to prove that Libby had intent. Intent in this case is nearly impossible to prove.


Again, you are making assumptions on facts not in evidence. Unless, of course, you have the transcript of Woodward's grand jury testimony....

No, you tool--the heart of the case is predicated on the fact that Libby gave conflicting versions of his story to both federal investigators and the Grand Jury. God, you'll do anything to defend this administration. Woodward's story only adds another potential level to the conspiracy.
Actually, the reason he was charged was more because he supposedly lied about the nature of his source(reporter vs government agent). Confusing two reporters is quite different from confusing a reporter from a government agent.

Again, you are making assumptions on facts not in evidence. Unless, of course, you have the transcript of Woodward's grand jury testimony....

It's a fact that Fitzgerald didn't know about Woodward.

Otherwise, there wouldn't have been a story about Woodward's surprise.

Fitzgerald went into the Libby case thinking he knew everything he needed to know.

It's obvious now, that at that time, he didn't have all the facts, nor did he know everything.

If I was Fitzgerald, I would be thinking that in this town, I'm guaranteed to be the last person to know who knows. It's already obvious that the town has secrets, and he'll be subjected to one surprise after another.

Oh yes, and another thing that editorial totally misrepresents is the fact that according to Bob, Bob's editer, etc, what is clear is that Woodward reviewed all notes and claims that Plame was NEVER MENTIONED in his conversations with Libby on June 23 and 27th.


So not only is the timeline wrong, but the facts pertaining to the conversation are too.


And, I might add, FITZGERALD HEARD ALL THIS IN THE GRAND JURY!

So Kimchi's notion that Fitz was clueless on the point is as much garbage as the palgiarized editorial he tried passing off as his own post.


Ah well, perhaps he just wrapped the tin-foil a bit to tight around the cranium this morning.....

It's pretty hard to take Fitzgerald seriously. He obviously had no idea that Woodward knew, or the name of Woodward's source.

Fitzgerald isn't holding all the facts, and is likely to be blindsided in court.

Defending Libby against perjury is rather simple at this point, Obstruction of justice would be even easier to defend.

You would have to prove that Libby had intent. Intent in this case is nearly impossible to prove.

Looks like Libby is going to avoid jail time.

Oh yes, and another thing that editorial totally misrepresents is the fact that according to Bob, Bob's editer, etc, what is clear is that Woodward reviewed all notes and claims that Plame was NEVER MENTIONED in his conversations with Libby on June 23 and 27th.


So not only is the timeline wrong, but the facts pertaining to the conversation are too.


And, I might add, FITZGERALD HEARD ALL THIS IN THE GRAND JURY!

So Kimchi's notion that Fitz was clueless on the point is as much garbage as the palgiarized editorial he tried passing off as his own post.


Ah well, perhaps he just wrapped the tin-foil a bit to tight around the cranium this morning.....


Before last Monday, Fitzgerald never heard anything at all about Woodward...

Did you forget?

The grand jury already decided that it was not a crime to talk about Wilsons wife . For many reasons..among them the fact that it wasnt quite a secret .
Libby is charged with intentionally misleading the grand jury with his answers.
The fact that no crime was committed has no effect on the right to investegate and when you impede an investigation you are commiting a crime .
Actually, they didn't. They decided that because of the obstruction, there was no way to charge anyone with the crime of outing a CIA agent at this time--there's a significant difference between the two, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that since you're too busy defending the most corrupt administration in the last hundred years.

OK, a retract, Fitz doesn't YET know all the details. But apparently given that the investigation is still ongoing he is about to: (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/16/cnna.downie/index.html?section=cnn_latest)

DOWNIE: Yes, the White House chief of staff Andy Card today said that we are free to report on this conversation that Woodward testified about. I have to go back to correct something you just said, Wolf. You said that after keeping the secret about Deep Throat for all these years he then gave this deposition to the special prosecutor.

He did so only after all three sources, including the source's name we can't divulge in the newspaper, released him from his pledge of confidentiality for the purposes of that deposition. So he was not violating the source relationship in giving that deposition. Otherwise, he wouldn't have done so.

BLITZER: What was the nature of the conversation with the White House chief of staff Andy Card?

DOWNIE: This did not come up. It was an incidental conversation about something else, and the special prosecutor merely wanted to know from Bob, did the subject of Valerie Plame come up, and Bob said no.

BLITZER: Who is the second official you're about to name in The Washington Post?

DOWNIE: That is Andy Card. Today we already named Libby and discussed Bob's testimony about his conversation with Libby in which Bob also does not remember Valerie Plame coming up, and as he searched through his notes, did not see any notes that he had taken about Valerie Plame being named by Mr. Libby.

BLITZER: And so the third source, who still doesn't want his or her name to be made public, Bob did discuss the conversation with this third still-unnamed source in detail with the special prosecutor?

DOWNIE: Yes, because the source gave Bob permission to discuss this with the special prosecutor, but not permission to write about it in the Post.

BLITZER: Can you report, can Bob report, or The Washington Post report, the nature of this conversation with this third unidentified source without violating any kind of ground rules? Now that he's discussed it in a deposition that will be presented, presumably, to a grand jury?

DOWNIE: No. That secret testimony will be presented secretly to the grand jury. We must still maintain this pledge to our source. If you recall, much earlier in the investigation, another one of our reporters, Walter Pincus, testified in a deposition also, with permission of the source, about a conversation which turns out that Mrs. Wilson didn't come up.




Still, Kimchi's notion is fatuous from the start. The fact that nobody knew about Woodwards conversations when no-one involved was saying shit about them does not make the prosecuter look bad.

It makes Bob and his three sources look like obstructionists for withholding that information from an ongoing investigation for two years.


All three sources were Whitehouse staffers. Libby, Andy CArd, and the mystery guy.



Remember when Bush publicly stated his directive that ALL staff members were to be forthcoming to aid the investigation? Why weren't these three if they had pertinent information? Why wait two years until just after the indictment comes down?


I'm sorry, but anyone saying that the fact that people kept secrets that the investigation was unable to uncover makes the investigator look pretty lame, to me all I haev to say it this:

you're rewarding dishonesty.

OK, a retract, Fitz doesn't YET know all the details. But apparently given that the investigation is still ongoing he is about to: (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/16/cnna.downie/index.html?section=cnn_latest)

Still, Kimchi's notion is fatuous from the start. The fact that nobody knew about Woodwards conversations when no-one involved was saying shit about them does not make the prosecuter look bad.

It makes Bob and his three sources look like obstructionists for withholding that information from an ongoing investigation for two years.

All three sources were Whitehouse staffers. Libby, Andy CArd, and the mystery guy.

Remember when Bush publicly stated his directive that ALL staff members were to be forthcoming to aid the investigation? Why weren't these three if they had pertinent information? Why wait two years until just after the indictment comes down?

I'm sorry, but anyone saying that the fact that people kept secrets that the investigation was unable to uncover makes the investigator look pretty lame to me.

you're rewarding dishonesty.

I'm not rewarding dishonesty, nor am I assigning or implying the morality or ethics of anyone involved in this (quite unlike you, who want to apply the labels right now, before anything is settled in court).

I'm just saying that Fitzgerald, as a prosecutor, has to realize that he was caught with his pants around his ankles, and he was powerless to prevent it. He has to be aware that he is involved in a political prosecution whether he likes it or not, and if he screws up, it will be the end of his career.

Not that anyone will fire him. It's just that if he can't figure out everything in detail very, very quickly and get a conviction on BOTH the perjury and obstruction, he'll be holding a cardboard "HELP ME" sign in Lafayette Park.

He's already been made to look like a fool once - right or wrong. I would bet that more people who haven't stepped forward (and may never be identified) know even more, and he won't find them unless they step forward.

I'm not rewarding dishonesty, nor am I assigning or implying the morality or ethics of anyone involved in this (quite unlike you, who want to apply the labels right now, before anything is settled in court).

I'm just saying that Fitzgerald, as a prosecutor, has to realize that he was caught with his pants around his ankles, and he was powerless to prevent it. He has to be aware that he is involved in a political prosecution whether he likes it or not, and if he screws up, it will be the end of his career.

Not that anyone will fire him. It's just that if he can't figure out everything in detail very, very quickly and get a conviction on BOTH the perjury and obstruction, he'll be holding a cardboard "HELP ME" sign in Lafayette Park.

He's already been made to look like a fool once - right or wrong. I would bet that more people who haven't stepped forward (and may never be identified) know even more, and he won't find them unless they step forward.

Bullshit.

He doesn't "look like a fool" because people withheld information. Teh Whitehouse looks more dishonest about their claim about wanting the investigation to succeed.

And dropping the indictment will only happen if the evidence supports that notion. So far, a conversation with Woodward three weeks after Libby was told by Cheney still does not make Libby look good. It just means that he was trying to pin the leak on the wrong reporter.

Cheney was still the source....

and if it turns out that Cheney was also the leak to Bobby, then it seems that Dick should have his lips stapled shut for being so cavalier with classified information.

Bullshit.

He doesn't "look like a fool" because people withheld information.

The talk around here is that he looks like he just got a wedgie. He's got to be pissed, because he's being played like a player piano.

The talk around here is that he looks like he just got a wedgie. He's got to be pissed, because he's being played like a player piano.


And yet your reaction to the Whitehouse playing the investigation into a national security breech "like a player piano" despite all promises to the contrary (so Mr Bush, when ARE you going to fire "everyone involved"?) is to suggest that the problem is with the investigation, not the white house, and that the whole thing shoule just be dropped.


Like I said: rewarding dishonesty.


Is that the Republican mantra these days?

"Do what's right.... PLUS whatever you can get away with"


Remember when GW was going to "restore honesty and integrity" to the White House?

People applauded that.

And yet your reaction to the Whitehouse playing the investigation into a national security breech "like a player piano" despite all promises to the contrary (so Mr Bush, when ARE you going to fire "everyone involved"?) is to suggest that the problem is with the investigation, not the white house, and that the whole thing shoule just be dropped.

Like I said: rewarding dishonesty.

Is that the Republican mantra these days?

"Do what's right.... PLUS whatever you can get away with"

Remember when GW was going to "restore honesty and integrity" to the White House?

People applauded that.

That is the mantra, if you haven't noticed, of every occupant of the White House in general. The only thing that changes is what they want to get away with.

It's a curious town. I invite you to come down and see it first hand - you can see a lot of these people on Friday nights at the Capitol Grille at 6th & Pennsylvania.

I am not concerned with morality and ethics, and I wish that people would stop trying to ascribe those highly subjective labels to my posts.

I am only trying to examine the situation from a political reality.

Silli, if you were Fitzgerald, and you realized that you were abandoned to this job in the middle of an ocean of Republicans (the Democrats have little or no power to help you), and you realized that you only held a fraction of the information (and had already been blindsided by Woodward on Monday), what trepidation would you feel?

Sure, you can't abandon the case. But you might be realizing that this is your last case.

Sierra (or whoever), your notion of "politcally reality" is so permanently skewed to the right to have devlved into simple partisan hackery.

And this issustrates the case perfectly.

Evidence is withheld for over two years to an investigation into a national security breech,and all you can do is add your call to those looking to quash the whole thing. This isn't a dispassionate look at the issues that you claim, this is partisan activism. And this is done without even taking the time to consider if this evidence in any way exonerates Libby for perjury when the timeline clearlyshows nothing of the sort.

Because Woodward already has indicated that he did not hear of it from Libby, and that his conversations took place after Libby heard about it from Cheney - but still tried to protect his boss and blame it on reporters for leaking it to him.

Maybe it will muddy the waters a bit. We won;t know until the full testimony is revealed. and maybe it won;t impact on Libby's perjury at all. Remains to be seen.

But if I were Fitz, given that by only giving permission to reveal this information AFTER the indictment it becomes clear that this IS an effort by the WhiteHouse to discredit him, I would hold a press conference of my own to turn it around and point it back. Challenge the White House to live up to it's original demands for anyone involved to come forward and aid the investigation and to stop jerking it around.

This was an issue of national security getting treated like a parlour game.

Spun the right way, this could backfire quite nicely....

This was an issue of national security getting treated like a parlour game.

Kind of like the Washington Post story about the secret prison system...

Oh, and as for an invite to DC, no thanks - I worked there before. It's a hellhole.

Nor does living in that city give you any more insight into the inner mechanisms of politcal Washington than living in Compton gives you a better viewpoint on internal studio politics in hollywood.

Proximity does not in and of itself imply deeper access or insight. Unless you actually claim to work within the goverment you get no different viewpoint on it's internal mechanisms if you live around the corner or across the country.

Kind of like the Washington Post story about the secret prison system...


Well then, let someone go after who leaked that too!

Well then, let someone go after who leaked that too!

They are. That leak is being investigated too.

Oh, and as for an invite to DC, no thanks - I worked there before. It's a hellhole.

Nor does living in that city give you any more insight into the inner mechanisms of politcal Washington than living in Compton gives you a better viewpoint on internal studio politics in hollywood.

Proximity does not in and of itself imply deeper access or insight. Unless you actually claim to work within the goverment you get no different viewpoint on it's internal mechanisms if you live around the corner or across the country.

I've worked for government contractors for years around here, grew up around here (in fact, when I was younger, I worked for a man who sailed on the Chesapeake with Al Gore - I was one of the crewmen and knew Gore quite well).

I regularly go to the Capitol Grille on Fridays to talk with people who I grew up with who work on the Hill now. Both Democrats and Republicans (and lobbyists).

Because Woodward already has indicated that he did not hear of it from Libby, and that his conversations took place after Libby heard about it from Cheney - but still tried to protect his boss and blame it on reporters for leaking it to him.

Whether or not Libby first heard of Plame through Cheney is irrelevant if he heard it back from a reporter before he "leaked" it to another reporter.

Whether or not Libby first heard of Plame through Cheney is irrelevant if he heard it back from a reporter before he "leaked" it to another reporter.

And now that all this is out in the news, you'll never find out when he actually knew.

I don't know what's funnier. Your staunch defense of a bad administration, or copying and pasting an editorial from the Monnie Times. This is from the same paper owned by the man who had himself CORONATED as the messiah! ROFL!

I don't know what's funnier. Your staunch defense of a bad administration, or copying and pasting an editorial from the Monnie Times. This is from the same paper owned by the man who had himself CORONATED as the messiah! ROFL!

The Rev. Moon doesn't exercise any editorial control.

The Rev. Moon doesn't exercise any editorial control.

But, you can't tell me that he doesn't have control over who does the editing. The fact that the editorial you pasted is even from that paper already bings its credibility into question. The Moonie Times might as well change their name to The Right Wing Times for all the "objectivity" they have.

But, you can't tell me that he doesn't have control over who does the editing. The fact that the editorial you pasted is even from that paper already bings its credibility into question. The Moonie Times might as well change their name to The Right Wing Times for all the "objectivity" they have.

Oh, and other papers and news outlets are completely objective?

CBS News? - with its Rathergate fake memo?
Fox News? - fair and balanced?
New York Times? Jayson Blair and Judith Miller?

It's quite well known, even in other sources, that Fitzgerald was blindsided by Woodward on Monday. Or do you not read any news at all?

How are you going to question the fact that the above face was repeated in a wide variety of papers? By saying, "well, he took it from a Moonie paper"?

Woodward Could Be a Boon to Libby (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111602147.html?sub=AR)

If you need me to post the article, let me know and I will.

This article is from the Washington Post.

Woodward Apologizes to Post For Silence on Role in Leak Case (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111601286.html?nav=hcmodule)

Also from the Washington Post.

Woodward Could Be a Boon to Libby (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111602147.html?sub=AR)

If you need me to post the article, let me know and I will.

This article is from the Washington Post.

Woodward Apologizes to Post For Silence on Role in Leak Case (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111601286.html?nav=hcmodule)

Also from the Washington Post.

These both say the same thing when boiled down, but add misleading titles to make people think it's "bad" (or "good" if you like defending corruption). And, that is: Scooter Libby is totally pwned. Fitzgerald has more proof that Libby didn't actually learn about Plame's CIA status from a reporter, but from the Vice President himself on June 12, 2003.

And, that is: Scooter Libby is totally pwned. Fitzgerald has more proof that Libby didn't actually learn about Plame's CIA status from a reporter, but from the Vice President himself on June 12, 2003.

Legally, that's not the point you have to prove.

You have to prove that Libby perjured himself intentionally - that is, that his testimony was not faulty memory, confusion over event order, timing, etc.

And, in order to prove obstruction of justice, you have to prove intent.

The apologist reasoning is crap.

For some reason, some people seem tot hink that because the prosecutor didn't know everything about an off-the-record conversation that only two people (Woodward and his source,) knew about that he's suddenlyan incompetent boob.

The spin machines are working hard today.

Secondly, this revelation HAS NOTHING TO DO with Libby's perjury or obstruction. Nothing at all. It doesn't change the statements Libby made repeatedly that don't jibe with the facts.

Of course Fitzgerald is pissed. After 2 years of silence, a reporter and a senior whitehouse official finally decided to open their mouths. Bush said that he told all his people to help with the investigation in any way thay can....and biting theior tongues until a week AFTER the indictment is helping? It's being forthright and truthful?

This latein the day revelation is grade a horseflop, and I can't believe some of you are eating it up.

Been busy all day, so I don't know if anyone has covered it, but despite what Libby's lawyer said yesterday, Woodward's statement does not contradict Fitzgerald's statement. I suggest the work of Keith Olbermann on MSNBC.com for the breakdown.

Let me add this little nugget about the investigation in general. From today's Wall Street Journal in an article titled "Woodward May Alter CIA-Leak Case" (no link, sorry, it's behind a subscription wall and I'm accessing it through my university Lexis/Nexis account) comes this little quote:

The White House now must brace itself for the possibility that Mr. Fitzgerald's probe, far from winding down, may have just gotten a second wind. Prosecutors deposed Mr. Woodward in anticipation of presenting that evidence to a new grand jury, according to a person familiar with the situation. The one that indicted Mr. Libby expired on Oct. 28. That could require that Mr. Card and the unnamed official be called to testify about their conversations with Mr. Woodward. A White House spokeswoman declined to comment.

and this one:

lso hanging over the White House is the possibility that Karl Rove, the deputy White House chief of staff, could be indicted. Mr. Rove has testified four times before the grand jury and remains under investigation. Vice President Dick Cheney is embroiled in the probe, mentioned in Mr. Libby's indictment as telling his former aide that Ms. Plame worked at the CIA's counterproliferation division. And Mr. Woodward's statement suggests that he planned to ask Mr. Cheney about Mr. Wilson's fact-finding on Iraqi weapons activity, and possibly planned to ask about Mr. Wilson's wife as well.

So it's a little early to be calling for the indictment to be dropped, unless of course you're the type of person who thinks the administration can do no wrong.

This is bushanomics here. I'm bush like. The president has already accepted the resignation of scooter libby. This has nothing to do with the Bush administration because libby is no longer in the administration. So libby should not be talked about and the problem will just take care of itself. Just like with what the president is doing. 36% of the country agrees with this I dont know whats wrong with the rest of you. You shouldnt be talkin about this its wrong. God might hear and God will tell bush and bush will be sad. And nobody wants a sad bush runnin around.

Let me add this little nugget about the investigation in general. From today's Wall Street Journal in an article titled "Woodward May Alter CIA-Leak Case" (no link, sorry, it's behind a subscription wall and I'm accessing it through my university Lexis/Nexis account) comes this little quote:



and this one:



So it's a little early to be calling for the indictment to be dropped, unless of course you're the type of person who thinks the administration can do no wrong.

The top one is from The Wall Street Journal (subscription only)?? Go figure...

EDIT: This is what I'm talking about when it comes to credibility. The Moonie times can't hold a candle to the journal. Yet, both are considered quite conservative in their reporting, one based in reality, the other... not so much. Guess which one's which...

The top one is from The Wall Street Journal (subscription only)?? Go figure...

EDIT: This is what I'm talking about when it comes to credibility. The Moonie times can't hold a candle to the journal. Yet, both are considered quite conservative in their reporting, one based in reality, the other... not so much. Guess which one's which...
Both of them. The WSJ has a good rep in their reporting--it's their editorial page that's ridiculous in its wingnuttery. But really, this is more of what some of us have been saying all along--the investigation isn't over, Fitzgerald is still working, and Rove, among others, is still in danger.