Well, They Didn't Find It Here!

I laugh at danger!  I sneer in the face of... oh, never mind.

[OK, I *think* the link is working now - prooofreding is for weenies.]

Comments

[TexasToast]

Link?

[Dwilkers]

If the link don't work, you must....

Bah. I never was much of a rhymer. Where's Johnny Cochran? Jesse?

[Rob W]

Um, he didn't say that. He said Libby was the first journalist known to have been leaked to. Kind of a big difference for a lawyer.

Not only that but what does that have to do with the actual case? Nothing. It matters not a whit to the indictment.

The statement was true at the time, that Libby was the first one known to have leaked. He thought perhaps there could be more.

[Sue]

What am I missing? The link isn't working for me. :(

[Ware Eybe]

Link...that is why is was not found here.

By the way, Woodward's testimony knocked out a huge pillar supporting Fitz's weak case. I didn't even know there was a pillar holding it up to begin with.

[Gary Maxwell]

Linky no worky

[TexasToast]

NOW I get the joke.

Rob

I think Tom knows it has little legal import - he is testifying in the court of public opinion - but a bit too cleverly this time.

That glove fits pretty darn tight.

[Kate]

I don't think he said known in his press conference. I believe it's in the indictment, but they played the tape last night and no known.

[JM Hanes]

LOL!

[Jack is Back!]

Why can't an "ex-administration official" be Joe Wilson? He probably thinks he was "senior" and unlike Scooter he can't asked to be called an "ex-hill staffer". How about a partisan stooge whose wife has a job of some sort at a government facility located in Langley, near Great Falls, Virginia.

[Rob W]

Kate:

"In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html

Its all over the internet. He sure did say it.

Woodward's testimony is utterly irrelevant to whether or not Libby lied. Did he tell a story that he heard it from Russert? Yes. Did Russert and other reporters say that he said something different to them than what he said to the Grand Jury? Yes. Did he persist in this story throughout the testimony and in his statements to prosecutors? Yes.

Looks bad for him.

[Jim E.]

"Why can't an 'ex-administration official' be Joe Wilson? "

If you are referring to Woodward's source, give us all a break. Please. This makes no rational sense. Give it up.

Joe Wilson has called on the Wash Post to both reveal Woodward's source and conduct an investigation into Woodward's behavior in all of this.

[clarice]

Why can't I read stuff into non existent links? Please tell me what this is about--slowly--in English.

[TP]

Nobody in here but us Chickens?

[Syl]

Rob W

So?

Fitz based his indictment on 'Libby was the first known' now it turns out Libby was not the first known so the basis for the indictment is shot to hell.

[boris]

Examine the link target carefully.

[Dwilkers]

Alright. I got it now that TT explained it.

/shuffles off....

[Syl]

Jim E

Joe Wilson has called on the Wash Post to both reveal Woodward's source and conduct an investigation into Woodward's behavior in all of this.

And what is this supposed to do? Make us shake in our booties? Wilson wants to discredit Woodward's testimony. But the press doesn't want Woodward's testimony discredited...they just want this whole thing to go away.

The press will finally turn against Wilson.

[brutus]

Rob W, you're missing the boat.
The relevance of Woodward's testimony should not be hard to see. The more evidence there is that the Plame info was known to reporters from sources other than Libby, the less likely it is that Libby's story that he heard it from a reporter is a lie. The more likely it becomes that, where Libby's account of a conversation conflicts with Russert's or with someone else's, the cause of the discrepancy is not intentional misrepresentation by Libby but perhaps faulty recollection by him or by Russert/whomever, or perhaps that Russert/whomever is the one making things up. These other explanations, the more plausible they become, grow into things we call reasonable doubt, that exacting standard that must be exceeded by the evidence in order to convict a person in this country.
The more practical issue created by Woodward is that Woodward's testimony screws up what appears to be Fitz's theory of the case, which is not an element of the proof, but it is what prosecutors always have nailed down before going to trial -- basically, the story that explains what happened for the jury. That business from the press conference announcing the indictments -- basically the "Libby told us he was at the end of a long chain of communications, but in fact he was the source, the first government official to disclose Plame" (and in this bit Fitz did NOT say "first known official"). This is Fitz's theory of the case for the perjury/obstruction charges. It is the whole point: "Libby lied throughout the investigation and how do we know? We know because not only was he not a mere recipient of the Plame info, in reality he was the source of it!!!"
Well, with Woodward's revelation, that theory looks not so rock solid. The info was out there and it didn't come from Libby. So now Fitz has to revise the theory in a way that fits the evidence. And the evidence, with Woodward now, is beginning to suggest that Libby DID hear it first from a reporter.

[Neo]

I laugh at your non working link. LOL

Now for something completely different.

[boris]

boris dittos brutus

[davebo]

Brutus, you'd better familiarize yourself with the actual facts of Woodwards revelation.

He doesn't claim he heard Plame's name from a reporter

The disclosure that a current or former Bush administration official told Bob Woodward of The Washington Post more than two years ago that the wife of a prominent administration critic worked for the C.I.A. threatened Wednesday to prolong a politically damaging leak investigation that the White House had hoped would soon be contained.

[Cheez-Wiz]

Brutus-you forgot one minor detail in your analytical tour de force: some people have brains.

[vnjagvet]

Tom's link:

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/11/Woodward%20testified%20Monday%20that%20contrary%20to%20Special%20Counsel%20Patrick%20J.%20Fitzgerald's%20public%20statements,%20a%20senior%20government%20official%20--%20not%20Libby%20--%20was%20the%20first%20Bush%20administration%20official%20to%20tell%20a%20reporter%20about%20Plame...

would puzzle even Sherlock Holmes. But not TT. Looks like a clue to nail Colnel Mustard with the knife in the butler's pantry. Will it get Libby off?

Beats me.

[Gabriel Gonzalez]

The relevance of Woodward's testimony should not be hard to see. The more evidence there is that the Plame info was known to reporters from sources other than Libby, the less likely it is that Libby's story that he heard it from a reporter is a lie.

Also, testifies that he has no recollection of Libby discussing Plame in two conversations. Add this to Judy Miller's conversations around the same time where she has no specific recollection of discussing Plame/Flame. Two reporters, four conversations, that are not consistent with Libby outing Plame. The conversation with Russert is only a couple of days later. Woodward's testimony (coupled with Judy Miller) is going to undermine Fitzgerald's case that Libby lied (as opposed to misremembered - or even told the truth in part) on state of mind, motive, and intent.

[DiGenova Salami]

If who was first to tell a reporter is totally irrelevant then why did Fitz mention it during his "Bash Libby" press conference?

Fitz insinuated many things at his press conference not specifically mentioned in the indictment. Maybe he was praticing his speech for the eventual jury. Too bad Fitz was shot down on a key point of his two years before the trial even begins.

Oh, Fitz's claim of damage to the CIA was also shot down already (either from Woodward's no damage found claim or if you don't trust Bob anymore then from the story that the CIA hasn't even done a damage assessment yet...wow, the desk jockey must have been deep, deep, deep undercover).

LOL!

[clarice]

YEah--Everytime I read that Woodward's testimony isn't significant I picutre Fitz' opening statement. LOL (Remember it's reversible error for a prosecutor to claim he will prove in the opening statment things he hasn't evidence for.."Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury:This case is about the non crime of not outing a not undercover agent and causing no harm to national security. It's about a guy who handles about 11K conversations a week not recalling who told him what and when about a not very important person involved in something which was not terribly significant to him--or anyone but Kristof. Pincus and Corn--at the time. And someone, I might add, whose story was roundly rejected as false by the bipartisan SSCI..Ah..Where was I..."

[Syl]

LOL

Clarice wins!

Jury dismissed!

[TexasToast]

Sorry Clarice

No prosecutor is going to make the defense's arguments in the opening.....

"We will prove he said X when he knew X was not true..."

[Squiggler]

To Tim Russert by Woodward & Bernstein on Washington officials, especially ones who leak:

MR. BERNSTEIN: They are your life line. Nobody in this town can tell the truth openly because of fear they're going to lose their jobs, that the only way you get real information is by talking person to person without--with the knowledge that your name is not going to go in the paper. What's important is the information and that the reporter is good enough to triangulate it elsewhere. That's what we did in Watergate. We didn't just use Mark Felt's information. Everything he told us we had somewhere else as well.

MR. WOODWARD: And you know what? The special prosecutor, Fitzgerald, in a way, has discovered that there is an underground railroad of information in Washington. You're smiling because no one knows more about it than you.

MR. BERNSTEIN: Well, you were down there.

MR. WOODWARD: Well, you talk to people, you talk to somebody in the White House or the CIA or the Democratic Party, and you say, "I've heard or I understand; what are you hearing?" And one of the discoveries in all of this is that reporters, in asking questions, convey information to even somebody like Karl Rove. Where did he first learn important elements of this? From a reporter. Now, my view, and I think Carl agrees with this, this investigation, though properly empowered, is an assault on that process that we have not just in Washington, any other community in this country where we have a First Amendment, and he will wind up crippling that process by dragging reporters before the grand jury. And I wonder if he and the judge have really sat down and said, "Now, what are we going to gain here vs. what are we going to lose?" And the loss might be immense.

[Squiggler]

Sorry, from Meet the Press, 17 Jul 2005

[clarice]

I'm reclining and peeling a bunch of grapes--whistle when the journos rush the editors of the MSM who demanded this investigation into the colliseum to be eaten alive by lions..

[Squiggler]

So are those "former government officials" Democrats? A member of the Democratic Party? Seems like Woodward is heading off speculation that that individual(s) are either White House or CIA in his more recent comments. Just asking as the experts seem to reside here.

[Rick Ballard]

TT,

Clarice's treatment of Fitzgerald is really mild in comparison to the death by a thousand cuts that the MSM is going to inflict upon him.

I would imagine that we are going to start seeing stories recapping what his initial task was and noting that he doesn't seem to have completed it. That's going to be followed by some "legal analysis" regarding the incompetency shown by Fitzgerald in his press conference fog fest that will be described as a cover for the weakness of the indictment. I still haven't figured out if the theme is going to be "heartless Jovert" or "clueless Clouseau". They may tag team him with the themes alternating on different days.

He can hang it up or leave town wearing a barrel. Those are now his choices.

[TP]

Squiggler. Given Woodward's penchant for finding some drama and conflict in his books, I would guess it is at least one Republican who is from the "Realist" rather than "Neo-Con" school of foreign policy who was not interviewed prior to the indictment.

It is odd we haven't heard from Novak.

[TP]

Sorry...Not interviewed by Fitzgerald.

[Lesley]

Interesting that Joe Wilson is demanding an investigation of Woodward at the WP. Much like the press found Cindy Sheehan less than useful once she started attacking Hillary Clinton, I suspect the press will close ranks on Joe Wilson and, perhaps, turn their spotlight on his credibility.

Well, I can dream, can't I?

[danking]

Clarice:

"I'm reclining and peeling a bunch of grapes--whistle when the journos rush the editors of the MSM who demanded this investigation into the colliseum to be eaten alive by lions.."

Me too.

Do you think the MSM is reluctant to admit that they got used by the CIA and Joe Wilson's false story.

[arrowhead]

"That's going to be followed by some "legal analysis" regarding the incompetency shown by Fitzgerald in his press conference fog fest that will be described as a cover for the weakness of the indictment."

It's about dam# time!

[TP]

Clarice, The Journos will eat each other first. Then they will eat Joe Wilson and then his wife and maybe his kids.

[Rick Ballard]

Danking,

The Feeb oathbreaker, Felt, used Woodward like toiletpaper - and made him king of the journos. They don't mind being used like that as long as their name is spelled correctly on the byline.

As to Beer/Clarke/Wilson/Kerry using the MSM and the MSM feeling foolish - only 'cause Kerry came up short. Wilson is going to get the Mother Sheehan treatment - you remember her, right?

Down the oubliette and "we don't speak of him in polite company". They bury more mistakes than a bad heart surgeon.

[clarice]

Of course, the press is reluctant to admit Wilson gulled them--Pincus waited over 2 years to correct the record, and did it will Milbanks holding a gun to his head I think. Even then he left in the critical forgery story which the WaPo corrected itself the next day. Kristof never really did and then only behind Times Select. The following day he redid his clarification without notifying the reader he did so. No change was made in print or to the Lexis version of his original stories.

NRO has been running a Hall of Shame for all those papers still parroting Wilson's tale.

Mind you--I strongly suspect they weren't quite that gullible--He was telling a tale that appealed to them and I think they did little to check out his story .
After the SSCI they shut up about him but then brought out the old lies again as the special prosecution was nearing completion.

And how do you justify Woodward's staying silent as his paper speculated that Rove and Cheney were next? PHEH on all that.

[scott]

Brutus and others are exactly right.

Fitzy's road to conviction was built on the fact that Libby that he could prove that Libby was the source for reporters, not the other way around...And on that count, he is a whole lot weaker today than it was 3 weeks ago...and he was weak then.

Miller and her "Flame" notes, lack of memory about where she received that info prior to interviewing Libby, makes her a suspect witness...

Now comes the star defense witness, the estimable Bob Woodward...who will tesify that he wrote down questions about "Wilson's wife" that he intended to ask Libby about, and that he can't remember is he did or didn't...and that he asked Pincus to leave him out of his reporting...

Slam dunk? Hardly...but one side has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and one side doesn't...

[clarice]

TP, well they're already gobbling their own--Judy Miller was forced out of the NYT and when Downie was critical of Woodward in the pressroom all the newsies apparently applauded..Of course, they were rather helpful to Libby..neither offering damaging information about Libby.

And why did Mitchell come up with that lame backstroke? Afraid of incurring Russert's wrath, I think.

[Jim E.]

I recall that lefties and righties on this website were both up in arms about Russert's behavior in the Plame matter: talking about the case without disclosing his own significant involvement.

Why does it seem that righties are giving Woodward a total pass for doing roughly the same thing as Russert?

[Neo]

The CIA-leak probe brought fresh cause for administration concern. The Washington Post's Woodward testified he was told Plame's identity in 2003. That also spurred a fresh bout of journalistic breast-beating. (WSJ What's News Worldwide 17-Nov-2005)

That about sums it up.

[clarice]

Michael Barone compares the internicine warfare at the NYT and Wa Post.. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneblog/columns/barone_051117.htm

[Marcel]

AP reports that Cheney's office claims that "Woodward did not talk with the Vice President that day". And what day would that be? Woodward didn't provide a date, just "mid-June". How does Cheney's office know it, unless one of their people was involved?

[BurkettHead]

Texas Toast wrote:
"Sorry Clarice
"No prosecutor is going to make the defense's arguments in the opening.....

" 'We will prove he said X when he knew X was not true...' "

If Fitz stays focused on that, he'll put the jury to sleep. Libby's lawyers will wake the jury up. The jurors will conclude that Fitz is trying to hide the interesting stuff from them & they'll wonder why. They'll think that Libby's lawyers are trying to find "the truth" while Fitz doesn't care. And Libby will walk.

[clarice]

Marcel, Woodward publicly gave the dates of the three conversations.