Drop the case against Libby, Mr. Fitzgerald

It's clear now that Mr. Fitzgerald has absolutely no case against Mr. Libby. Why is this?

The case against Libby has NOTHING to do w/releasing classified info, revealing Plame's name, treason, etc. Libby is being charged w/perjury and obstruction of justice because Fitz thinks that Libby lied in his testimony to federal prosecutors. Libby could have testified about ANYTHING and Fitz could have indicted him for perjury if he thought he was lying. If Fitz thought Libby had a ham sandwich and Libby testified that he had a turkey sandwich, Fitz could indict him for perjury.

The cruz of Fitz's case, according to the indictment http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf, is that Libby testified that he FIRST heard FROM reporters about Plame, while Fitz maintains that it was the other way around: Libby TOLD REPORTERS about Plame, and Libby already knew about Plame from Cheney et al. The reporters are Tim Russert and Matt Cooper.

There are a couple of problems w/the case right off the bat. First off, Libby doesn't even testify that he FOUND OUT about Plame from the reporters. Here is his testimony from the indictment:

"And I said, no, I don't know that. And I said, no, I don't know that intentionally because I didn't want him to take anything I was saying as in any way confirming what he said, "

What Libby testified to was NOT that he heard about Plame for the 1st time from reporters, but HE FEIGNED IGNORANCE SO AS NOT TO CONFIRM WHAT HE SAID. This is a big difference! Libby, IN REALITY, testified he lied to Russert by denying he knows about Plame, because Libby "DIDN'T WANT TO CONFIRM WHAT RUSSERT WAS SAYING". Libby DID know about Plame when he talked to Russert and Cooper, but he feigned ignorance to them, and THAT is what he testified to!

Libby is an experienced Washington lawyer, and when he testified to prosecutors, LIBBY ALREADY KNEW that Fitz KNEW about Russert and Cooper. Why would Libby perjure himself WHEN HE KNEW THAT? The answer is that Libby did NOT perjure himself: he testified NOT that he heard about Plame from the reporters, but he PRETENDED to first hear about Plame from the reporters. That's why he says:

"I don't know that because I want to be very careful not to confirm it for him, so that he didn't take my statement as confirmation for him. "

If Fitz' interpretation is accurate and Libby DID testify that he first heard about Plame from reporters, WHY did he want to not confirm the statement? Think about it: if Libby heard about Plame for the first time, why would he concerned about confirming Russert's statements? Libby would just tell Russert "I had no idea about Plame" because HE REALLY DID HAVE NO IDEA about Plame. Now, let's pretend Libby ALREADY KNEW about Plame (which he did). When Russert ASKS about Plame, Libby now has a REASON to NOT CONFIRM Russert's statement.

Again, it does NOT MAKE SENSE for Libby to not confirm a statement if he REALLY IS HEARING it for the 1st time. So...it should be pretty clear that Libby was not lying to prosecutors, he just lying to reporters!!

Fitz's case relies on the fact of interpreting Libby's statements to be that he heard about Plame FROM reporters. Fitz says that is impossible (Libby is lying) because:
1 Fitz can show that Libby heard about Plame before talking to reporters
2 REPORTERS DID NOT KNOW about Plame before Libby

#1 is true, we have documentation (that Libby knew about BEFORE talking to prosecutors) that Libby did hear from Cheney and other sources in the State Dept. that Wilson's wife "suggested" he go to Niger and Wilson's wife, Plame, worked for the CIA.

#2 has proven SUBSEQUENT to Libby's indictment NOT TO BE TRUE. Bob Woodward testified to this:
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/16/D8DTLRKG5.html

If you read it, it's clear that:
1 Bob Woodward testified to Fitz AFTER Libby was indicted
2 Woodward knew about Plame's indentity BEFORE Libby talked to reporters
3 Neither Libby nor Rove was Woodwards' source
4 Woodward told Walter Pincus, a reporter at the Post, about Plame
5 Fitz asked Woodward not to release the source that told Woodward
6 Woodward says it's possible that HE told Libby about Plame, but he can't recall

What does this tell you? SOMEONE ELSE besides Rove and Libby is the original "leaker". THIS PERSON is the person Bush was talking about when he said he wanted to "find the leaker". Bush didn't know who it was, but he KNEW it wasn't Libby or Rove.

More importantly, is shows that THE PRESS KNEW ABOUT PLAME BEFORE LIBBY TALKED TO REPORTERS.

This totally undermines Fitz's case, because he can not PROVE that Libby told the reporters about Plame because SOME IN THE PRESS already knew about Plame. Libby's lawyers can just put Woodward on the stand and the jury will know that Woodward knew about Plame, as did Pincus, and ???? who knows who else in the press.

Without a tape recording of Russert's and Cooper's converstaion with Libby, it is NOT POSSIBLE to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that Libby told the reporters about Plame OR that the reporters told Libby about Plame. Libby's lawyers can say it is POSSIBLE that Russert/Cooper were told by Pincus or someone else in the press, which it certainly is.

Given Woodward's testimony, BOTH are plausible. I'll say that again: without a tape recording of Libby's conversations with Russert and Cooper, it is NOT POSSIBLE to PROVE that Libby told the reporters about Plame. Because it is not possible to PROVE this, Fitz has no case.

I don't fault Fitz for this. Libby's statements were interpreted incorrectly by Fitz, but there is some doubt there. However, Woodward did not testify to Fitz until AFTER HE INDICTED Libby.

Fitz had NO IDEA that other reporters knew about Plame UNTIL Woodward testified. Of course, Libby TOLD FITZ THAT in his testimony, but Fitz thought Libby was lying.

Bob Woodward's testimony effectively nullifies Fitz's case against Libby. I'm confident Fitz will do the right thing and drop the case.