The defense theory of Libby case

Byron York:

What do Bob Woodward, Robert Novak, Walter Pincus, David Sanger, Glenn Kessler, and Evan Thomas have in common? They’re all reporters, of course, and on Monday, in testimony at the perjury and obstruction trial of Lewis Libby, each had much the same story. Each was covering events in Washington during that intense period in mid-2003 when the Bush administration came under attack from former ambassador Joseph Wilson over its case for war in Iraq. Each interviewed Libby, then Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff. And each heard nothing from Libby about Valerie Plame Wilson.

Together, their testimony raised questions about one of the fundamental theories underlying the CIA-leak case. If Libby’s disclosure of Mrs. Wilson’s identity to Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper was part of a White House conspiracy to out Joseph Wilson’s wife, why didn’t Libby take the opportunities he had to out her to Woodward, Novak, Pincus, et al? Did Cheney, who is portrayed in some scenarios as the mastermind of the leak, tell Libby to disclose Mrs. Wilson’s identity to Matt Cooper and not to Bob Woodward? To Judith Miller and not to Robert Novak?

If there don’t appear to be satisfactory answers to those questions, then that is exactly the impression the Libby defense hoped to leave on its first day of presenting witnesses; the idea was to pick away at the version of events presented by the witnesses called by prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. Much of that was done indirectly, with the testimony of leaks not made....

...

“Was the person who told you this on July 12 a government official?” Jeffress asked.

“Yes,” said Pincus.

“Was it Mr. Libby?”

“No.”

“Who was it?”

“It was Ari Fleischer.”

Not only was that a direct contradiction of Fleischer, it was also the second time a reporter had differed with the former press secretary’s testimony. On the day Fleischer took the stand, Dickerson wrote an account flatly denying that Fleischer told him about Mrs. Wilson. But that was in the pages of Slate, not in the courtroom, and the jury presumably knows nothing of it. Jurors could see Pincus’ testimony for themselves. (Gregory, for his part, has not publicly commented.)

...

This testimony not only undercuts Fleisher's testimony at the trial but plays into a defense theme that everybody has faulty recollection of some events. York's piece gives much more detail onthe testimony of the reporters yesterday. It all plays into refuting Fitzpatrick's theory of the case that there was an organized effort to out Plame. Many on the left missed the significance of the testimony since it did not directly contradict the charges that Libby made misstatements to the grand jury. One of the early lessons one learns as a trial lawyer is that a case is like a painting with many strokes and the picture only becomes clear when they are all taken as a whole.