A quick perusal of
Woodward's statement gives me the impression that this has no effect on Scooter Libby. Here's why:
Woodward states that he discussed Valerie Plame with only the original unamed Administration official who disclosed Plame's identity to him, before July 14, 2003 and no others. The disclosure was erroneous, in part, because it said Plame was a CIA analyst and did not reflect the she was a NOC. This points to the "mid-June" discussion being after June 11, 2003, because the erroneous description of Plame is contained in the June 12, 2003 State Dept. Grossman memo on Wilson's Niger trip. Who was the unamed official? Could it be Libby? Impossible to believe that. Libby had just been indicted. Rove's lawyers say it was not him. Who's left? I would argue that it would be someone with access to the June 12, 2003 Grossman memo or the information provided therein. That would thus include just about anyone in Cheney's office and, one supposes, the State Department. In any event, Fitzgerald knows who this person is.
So when is "mid-June"? This is important as we know Libby was informed about Plame by Cheney on June 12, 2003, a day after the issuance of the Grossberg State department memo. Presumably "mid-June" is before June 20 because Woodward states that he interviewed "a second Administration official" and had prepared questions about "Joe Wilson's wife." Woodward say he never asked those questions based on his tape of the interview. Who was this "second Administration official?" Woodward does not say. But it was not Scooter Libby. Why?
Because on June 23, 2003, Woodward says he interviewed a third Administration official who he identifies as Libby. Thus, the second official can not be Libby. So what did Woodward ask Libby? About yellow cake apparently. But not Plame. No recollection says Woodward. Woodward has no notes of the interview with Libby. Quite a difference from the tape recording he has of the June 20, 2003 interview.
So who was the second official? We don't know. But, if Woodward is to be believed, it is irrelevant because Plame was not discussed.
On June 27, 2003, Woodward interviewed Libby a second time. Again, Woodward testifies that he does not believe he asked Libby about Plame or that Libby discussed Plame with him.
Ok, so Libby is helped not one bit here. Woodward says he did not even discuss Plame with Libby.
According to the Libby Indictment, paragraphs 13 and 14, on June 19, 2003, Libby discussed wth his principal deputy a June 19, 2003 New Republic article discussing the "16 words" and the implication that Vice President Cheney had sent Wilson to Niger. Libby stated to the deputy that the origins of the Niger trip could not be discussed on a nonsecure line, because there would be complications at the CIA.
Just four days later, on June 23, 2003, Libby told Judy Miller all about Plame, without using a "cone of silence" apparently.
What does this all mean? For Libby, nothing good, despite the protestations of his lawyers. He is accused of perjury and obstruction of justice. His lie was about how he found out about Plame. Since he was told by Cheney on June 12, 2003 and he lied and said he learned it later from "reporters," Woodward's statements, even if one were to assume Woodward was wrong and he actually told Libby about Plame, still would not exculpate him from his lie - to wit, he learned about Plame from Cheney, not a reporter.
What does it mean about Plamegate? Not clear. The unnamed Administration official who told Fitzgerald on November 3, 2005 that he told Woodward about Plame may face jeopardy, or not, depending on whether his failure to tell Fitzgerald about the conversation came under oath, whether he was ever asked relevant questions at all and whether or not he is a cooperating witness.
What does it mean about Bob Woodward? That his reputation is shot.
Comments are closed on this story.