This is third in a series of posts on the Fitzgerald affadavit recently released. Here is the previous post on the matter.

In a previous post I noted that Fitztgerald perjury case would vaporize if Libby had testified and admitted he heard about Plame from internal government sources prior to talking to reporters. If Libby clearly admitted that he was notified about Plame via government sources, Fitztgerald cannot twist his ambiguous comment about ‘being surprised about Plame’ during his discussions with Russert.

As I pointed out here, Russert seems to have known Plame was a CIA employee who sent Wilson to Niger – what he apparently did not know was Plame was also Mrs. Wilson.

By itself Libby’s surprise is a weak statement to claim perjury on – it does not deny other sources at other times. That would be perjury. But in light of testimony agreeing that there were other sources at other times, the vagau statement becomes impossible for Fitzgerald to use to negate clear testimonythat that states the opposite. And, according to Fitzgerald, there was clear testimony from Libby that stated the opposite (from page 9)

Libby acknowledged that his own notes indicated that he had been advised by the Vice President in early June 2003 that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA. Libby maintained, however, that while he had learned that fact from the Vice President in June, he had forgotten about it by the time he spoke to Russder in early July. Further, according to Libby, he did not recall his conversation with the Vice President even when Russert allegedly told him about Wilson’s wife’s employment.

Fitzgerald cannot disprove any of this beyond a reasonable doubt! What a moron. Libby can and obviously will say he had many more important issues on his mind besides the rantings of some has-been like Wilson.

The affadavit includes details of Libby’s testimony – including the confirmation that the Libby called because of comments made on the Chris Mathew’s show!

UPDATE:

Russert testified that he does not recollect discussing Wilson’s wife with Libby – but how could that be given the topic of the call? Page 9-10

More specifically, Libby has testified that he spoke with Tim Russert on July 10 or 11, 2003, when Libby called to complain to Russert in Russert’s capacity as NBC Washington Bureau chief about what Libby perceived to be unfair coverage by Chris Mathews of MSNBC. (Mathews was reporting that the Vice President and/or his staff knew about Wilson’s trip to Niger and thus, in Mathew’s view, knowingly allowed the President to mislead the public in the State of the Union).

Emphasis mine. If anyone would be in a position to know whether the VP or his staff knew about Wilsons trip and hid it from the President it would be Libby. And let’s assume Libby checked with Cheney first before lodging the complaint – which would be a normal procedure before talking to the press I would guess.

So Libby calls and says there is no way Cheney or he or anyone else knew about Wilson’s trip. Why would Libby then mention Plame? It would undermine his claim of ignorance about Wilson?

Now everyone at the time claimed Cheney had ordered the CIA to send Wilson. And how do they know this? Well Wilson said so, but confirmation came from …Plame? Russert claims there was no discussion of Plame/Mrs. Wilson – but his only way of defending Mathews statement would be someone like Plame.

I think Russert is in deep trouble here. I think he is suffering of a faulty memory more than Libby is.