Why do the talking heads think Woodward's testimony hurts Fitz' case?

[WI_DEM]

Why do they feel that Woodward not getting Plame's name from Scooter helps his case and damages fitz'? and also, isn't it obvious that it's Rove who began these damaging leaks against Plame?

[Marnieworld]

1. Because they are RW shills

and they are just repeating GOP/ Libby's lawyers' talking points.

Anyone with half a brain knows that Fitz said Libby was the first "known" leaker and that it is irrelevant who also leaked to his obstruction and perjury charges.

[htuttle]

2. Cause they're paid to say that

That's why they're called 'talking heads'. Put a quarter in, and it will say anything you like.

[LisaM]

3. Yep, they think if they repeat the lie often enough

that Fitz said Libby was the "FIRST" leaker (which KO pointed out was untrue) that people will start believing it.

[liberal N proud]

4. That is the talking point provided by the White House.

[Catherine Vincent]

Spinning for Scooter!

That is all.

[mmonk]

5. They don't think,

they follow orders.

[MidwestTransplant]

6. Because they just talk and don't think. They are regurgitating Libby's

lawyer's comments.

[Arkansas Granny]

7. Just the usual spin. Scooter was not indicted for leaking, he was

indicted for lying and obstruction of justice. If someone else leaked before Scooter id, it doesn't change the fact that he lied to the Grand Jury. And we all remember, don't we, "it's not about the sex, it's about the lying".

[saracat]

8. They are gurgling "talking Points". They are trying to spin it to Bush's

advantage and it isn't working.

[dl5192]

9. Wrong guys...This is a big deal...

Libby stands accused of lying about telling the grand jury that a reporter revealed the identity of Joe Wilson's wife. The fact is that in a space of two weeks, Libby had conversations with two reporters...Russert and Woodward.

Russert denied being the source of Plame's identity. Woodward has come out and said he may have revealed her identity in his conversation with Libby. He certainly knew her identity...it was on his list of questions to ask Libby!

Since this is a criminal case, the standard of guilt will be beyond a reasonable doubt. This creates serious doubt. Libby dealt with dozens of matters and had hundreds of conversations a day. His defense will be he was confused about who the reporter was. If Fitz pursues this, he likely won't win.

Look to see the indictment dismissed sometime next week.

[janx]

11. Dream on!

;-)

[dl5192]

13. Think again...

Take your passion out of this for a second a look at the facts. This is not going to stand up. I'm not saying that's right or wrong. I'm saying that a criminal conviction is incredibly unlikely.

[janx]

19. It's not a question of my having passion or not having passion--

don't make that assumption.

The FACTS are that neither you nor I have the facts pertinent to this investigation except for the FACT that Libby has been indicted and will either plead or will go to trial. And if we have to go through all of that to find out who outed a CIA agent, so be it.

[Oilwellian]

16. There's only one problem with your theory

The notes showing Cheney was Libby's source. The notes are also dated long before Libby and Woodward's meeting. Good try though.

[Garbo 2004]

21. Except at least three people in the Administration had already told

Libby about Wilson's wife (and one of those three was Cheney) more than a week before Libby's conversation with Woodward. So Libby couldn't have learned it from Woodward since he already knew long before he talked to Woodward. That's why Woodward's "revelation" is no big deal.

But thanks for playing. Enjoy your stay.

[Punkingal]

23. Yeah, uh-huh,

It won't be dismissed. Sorry to disappoint you.

[jobycom]

25. No, sorry, your facts are way off

Libby is accused of two counts of perjury, two counts of making false statements to the FBI, and one of obstruction. Basically, it boils down to Libby lying that Russert told him first, and lying that he only told Matt Cooper what he had heard from Russert, not knowing if it was true.

The problem is, Russert denies he told Libby. We know for sure that Libby was told by both Marc Grossman and Dick Cheney in early June. Libby claims he forget they told him, so when Russert told him, it was all new to him. That's where the perjury comes from.

Woodward's conversation with Libby was on June 23, and Woodward, too, says he testified that Plame's name or identity came up in the conversation. So even if Libby claims that Woodward told him first, instead of Russert, he still faces the same problem--the reporter doesn't back him up, and in fact, the reporter proves him wrong, since Woodward claims the only reporter he told was Walter Pincus, who claims he didn't know, and that Woodward didn't tell him.

Libby still has no leg to stand on. Woodward's testimony doesn't agree with Libby's testimony in any way.

The one issue Woodward's testimony changes is the idea that Libby was the first leak to the press. Someone else told Woodward, and they told Woodward that everyone in the press knew. Since not everyone did know, that detail resembles a talking point more than proof against a leak. In fact, it opens Libby and whomever told Woodward to conspiracy and obstruction charges, for coordinating their stories. So Libby may be cleared as the originator of the leak (though he still passed on classified information, which still is a crime even if someone else had passed it on first), but his perjury and obstruction charges still stand strong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/17/national/17leak.html?hp&ex=1132290000&en=8cd8fdf1d731c104&ei=5094&partner=homepage

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/10/28/indictment.pdf

[Loonman]

10. Woodward's testimony couldn't have anything less to do with Fitz's case

Could be the talking heads are ignorant morons.

[dl5192]

14. Have you read the indictment???

I wouldn't pronounce people morons quite so quickly there. This has a lot to do with the case.

[Loonman]

17. Libby will most likely be charged with lying to the Grand Jury

...investigating the case, not the case per se.

[Garbo 2004]

24. Pages 4 and 5 are particularly relevant. n/t

[janx]

12. They're paid to speculate.

They have to throw the wingnuts a bone every now and then. Since they're no longer promoting the war in Iraq, they have to come up with something. :shrug:

[blm]

15. Because they spin for their masters who fear loss of control in the

postKatrina and postFitzgerald world.

[jane_pippin]

18. Well, look for them to leave out the word "known" as Keith Olbermann

pointed out multiple times on his show last night.

They're trying to claim that this means the indictment is meaningless because somehow it vindicates Libby's "I heard it from a reporter" line, and oh, look, he really wasn't the first one to say something,(which again, goes back to leaving out the "known" word).
Problem is, he didn't get indicted for leaking, he got indicted for lying during the investigation. They're trying to say this Woodward stuff shows he didn't lie, but who knows. We'll see what's what during the trial. I'd be inclined to say he did lie and that this has nothing to do with anything as far as Libby is concerned.
When Fitz said Libby was the first guy known to have talked to reporters it left open the chance that someone else did it first, and apparently someone did and did it to Woodward. But again, that in and of itself has nothing to do with Libby unless he can prove that Woodward was the guy who told him (Libby) about Plame, which I think is a stretch since other reporters have said that it was Libby calling reporters, not reporters calling Libby.

Phew. Just trying to think out loud and get my head around it all here. As always, I could be wrong.

[in_cog_ni_to]

20. They THINK if they say something enough, people will believe it.

It's the Wh's talking point. They don't really believe it's true, but they know their sheeple supporters will believe anything.

[smartvoter]

22. It makes no sense at all. They like to create controversy. nt

[wishlist]

26. Libby never claimed to have heard her identity first from Woodward

Libby told GJ that reporters told him first about Plame's identity and specifically mentioned Miller and Russert who have testified that they did not tell Libby first. Libby did not allege hearing about Plame from Woodward and the indictment states that Libby was already well aware of Plame's identity before talking to Miller and Russert because he first discussed Plame a couple of times with government officials around June 12 to June 14.

Woodward was informed by a government official in mid June but neither Woodward or Libby have alleged that Woodward brought up Plame to Libby first and Woodward stated he does not remember discussing Plame with Libby at all and his notes do not indicate that they discussed Plame in mid June although Woodward knew her identity at the time of the interview. (Libby probably knew that Woodward had already been told about Plame so he didn't mention her to Woodward)

I don't believe that Woodward's testimony will help Libby once the facts are clarified even though Libby's defenders are trying to spin that Woodward could have been Libby's source. So far no reporters have alleged that Woodward was their first source either and the only reporter who Woodward claims to have told was Walter Pincus who strongly denies that Woodward told him about Plame prior to the Novak column.