How does Woodward's statement help the Bush cartel?

[NNN0LHI]

Sounds to me like Fitzgerald is still investigating this pretty diligently and that the conspiracy to out a covert agent includes more conspirators than we first thought. Am I missing something here?

Don


Text of Woodward's statement
RAW STORY

The following was available as a PDF at the Post site; we post it here for easier reading.

#
On Monday, November 14, I testified under oath in a sworn deposition to Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald for more than two hours about small portions of interviews I conducted with three current or former Bush administration officials that relate to the investigation of the public disclosure of the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame.

The interviews were mostly confidential background interviews for my 2004 book ``Plan of Attack'' about the leadup to the Iraq war, ongoing reporting for The Washington Post and research for a book on Bush's second term to be published in 2006. The testimony was given under an agreement with Fitzgerald that he would only ask about specific matters directly relating to his investigation.

[Halliburton]

1. that's what I get out of it

[central scrutinizer]

2. I don't think it does

It shows that sensitive, classified information was casually handled by this maladministration. Kept secret if it contradicted their case but willingly shared if it helped. Remember, Woodward was shown a lot of classified information as he wrote his hagiography, "Bush at War". Yet almost all of the Senate had their security clearances revoked.

[HereSince1628]

3. The way it's already use to .cast doubt on Fitz' thoroughness

the story will be that Fitz' didn't get the whole story

Doubt is what a defense needs demonstrate to the jury. Doubt provides a window for supporters to maintain faith.

[FranzFerdinand]

5. watch it

you're gonna get railed on DU if you dare think this might not bode well for Fitzgerald. "they" will certainly spin it against Fitzgerald whether it's true or fair or not.

[emulatorloo]

7. they can spin all they want - Fitz does not care about spin

EOM

[NNN0LHI]

9. I think the problem is people are used to having Democrats investigate...

...Republicans and vice versa. This is nothing like that. Libby would have never been indicted had the Dem's been leading this investigation. Don't some people understand that?

Don

[HereSince1628]

30. Everyone reads shit into things, why get uptight about that?

What I said is obvious from the published statements of defense lawyers. And I suggested a rationale for doing so. Playing on the importance the public places on the notion of doubt.

I made no assertion about how it will actually work if applied to Libby's case.

I did not say that Fitzgerald's investigation was at all flawed. It goes without saying that when there is obstruction the truth cannot be known completely.

I also did not say it was a strategy that would work.

The OP asked how the issue that Woodward might have known before Libby would be used. I suggested an answer to that.

[emulatorloo]

6. lawyers are lawyers and they will say what they are paid to say

even if it is not credible.

1. this info does nothing to change the case against libby
2. this info may not be new to Fitz
3. if this info is new to Fitz, it is only because an "unnamed official" was hiding it from Fitz

[Fovea]

8. THe problem with that approach

is that it plants doubt in the wrong direction for the defendant.
That is to say, it makes l'il Scooter seem even guiltier by hinting at the actual size of the criminal conspiracy.

"Don't convict our boy of arson, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, because the facts show that he was just trying to light the fuse on a one ton bomb when the drapes caught fire."

This is a pathetic, frantic tactic from pathetic, terror stricken criminals.

[Zen Democrat]

28. That's a ridiculous argument. It doesn't cast any doubt on Fitzgerald.

Because following that logic, Fitzgerald would have had to put every reporter, journalist, columnist or media newsperson under oath to find out if they were told about "Wilson's wife" in the summer of 2003. Fitzgerald can only go where the evidence leads -- and if no one had previously dropped Woodward's name, there was no reason to talk to Woodward.

Fitzgerald received this information in early November from a "senior administration official". Wonder if it was one of the senior officials who had already testified and "forgot" about Woodward before?

Anyway, this is bad for Woodward, bad for Woodward's source, bad for the Washington Post, doesn't help Libby or Rove .... and it opens up another avenue of inquiry for Fitzgerald. To me, it's all good.

[emulatorloo]

4. it doesn't - and it sure doesn't clear Libby, despite the paid BS his lawyer

spews.

The news that some official was spreading around Plame's identity in mid June does not help Bushco. Sounds like a conspiracy to me. Don't care that the official allegedly told woodward it was no big deal/not classified. If I am unscupulous, I can tell you any secret and claim "oh it isnt a secret"

[Punkingal]

10. Agreed,

It looks more and more like a conspiracy. It is ludicrous to think all these people were talking about Plame independantly of each other. I think Fitz is after conspiracy, and I think Cheney is one of Woodward's sources.

[Joe Chi Minh]

23. Woodward should know that protestations that he does not

recollect have a very unfortunate and discreditable recent history in precisely this kind of context of indictments of Republican criminals. One faculty that individuals in those circles would tend to possess to a very high degree, is a finely-honed memory. The issues they deal with, as they well know, are "matters of great pith and moment".

[GR]

11. It Is An Attempt To Remove The "Knowingly" From The Charge.Update..

He says that his source said he didn't think it was "classified" and this tends to support whomever saying that he didn't know Plame's identity was classified and keeps him from being charged under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act which can carry the death penalty.

I think there are problems with Woodward's testimony, especially his attempt to show he told someone else contemporaneously about it (Pincus) because Pincus vehemently denies it.

Update: And the statement "didn't think it was classified" reminds me of Nixon speaking into the potted plant "we could get a million dollars, BUT IT WOULD BE WRONG..."

[Loonman]

12. I'm hesitant to trust Woodward

Besides Watergate and a book of lies about John Belushi, he's still a reporter looking to get paid.

[NNN0LHI]

15. I would only trust what Woodward says while he is under oath

As he was when Fitzgerald interviewed him two days ago.

Don

[Joe Chi Minh]

24. I wouldn't.

[NNN0LHI]

25. You must have missed that indictment Fitzgerald handed down on Libby then

Because that was all about lying under oath. 30 years worth of lying while under oath. I wouldn't lie to Fitzgerald about anything.

Don

[Joe Chi Minh]

27. I would hope you are wiser and more honest than Woodward.

[asjr]

13. I hope this raises Fitz's hackles. I get the idea he

does not enjoy being toyed with. I believe a journalist has a right not to name an informant, but when it comes to having information that does damage to the country it should not apply. I have no idea how this will affect the case, but Bob Woodward's long-worn halo has been so tarnished he has lost all credibility. Watergate was a long time ago and he has been feeding off of it for years. He has become a traitor to his own country.

[leftofthedial]

14. it's a sign that neocons are protecting their movement

instead of their puppet's regime

[Loonman]

16. Woodward on the take?

Why's he doing damage control/perception shaping?

[Hamlette]

17. Libby's defense is reporters told him, is that why Woodward testified?

From another article it seems Woodward says they told him about Plame, not the other way around. But Libby might be saying his statement about "I was just passing around rumors I had heard from reporters" is true IF Woodward heard it from someone other than Libby then passed it on and it got back to Libby. I'm thinking that's what Libby is trying to prove.

[NNN0LHI]

19. But haven't the people who Libby said told him like Russert already...

...testified that Libby lied about that? And hasn't Cheney already been identified as admitting to being the original source to Libby in the indictment?

Don

[Hamlette]

21. Libby is saying he'll prove he is innocent

and to do that it seems he has to say he heard if first from a reporter.

I've forgotten the time line for when Cheney told Libby. If it was after "all the reporters were telling him" about it, he has a defense. Maybe.

[Jim__]

26. Cheney told Libby on June 12.

The Times said it based its account on Libby's notes from a June 12, 2003, meeting between him and Cheney. According to lawyers involved in the case who described Libby's notes to the Times, they indicate Cheney got his information about Plame from George Tenet, then director of the Central Intelligence Agency.More...

According to Woodward he talked to Cheney on June (I think) 27. It odesn't change the major factors in the indictment. Libby still has to have forgotten that Cheey told him; and, clearly Chjeney told him for a reason.

Libby also heard more about Plame b/4 meeting Woodward.

But, Libby will try ot use this new information to muddy the water.

[Hamlette]

29. yeah, dates don't add up. we need a list of dates on when things

happened. My bet is though that Libby has said that he heard it FROM Woodward. Woodward says (it seems) that his first conversation with Libby was on June 23. Then he says: "When asked by Fitzgerald if it was possible I told Libby I knew Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. . ." This refers to the June 27 conversation with Libby.

So...seems to me that Libby said he got it from Woodward and Fitz called in Woodward to see if that is true.

Libby should be smarter than this...or there is something we don't know. First he said he got it from Russert, which Russert denies, now he seems to be saying he got it from Woodward but the date seems too late in the game (June 23 at the earliest) because didn't Miller say Libby told her on June 20?

[Mist]

18. It sounds like they're hunting around for another fall guy--one

who will distract from the direction Libby's indictment leads them. A fall guy with no connection to the VP's office. They're laying a "back story." The fact that it's Woodward makes it questionable.

[dennis4868]

20. His book, Plan of Attack

was a loser book....with all the evidence out there now that we were lied to get into this war, his book was silent on this. For a reporter like Woodward, he should have put this evidence into his loser book.

[Spazito]

22. I wonder if Libby had disclosed his conversations with Woodward

in his initial testimony or if this is a further potential obstruction charge? Woodward's delinquent disclosure and testimony doesn't help Libby or the bush admin at all, imo, if anything, it widens the number of people involved in the conspiracy to out Plame.