It's he said, she said on the Plame leak:

[FormerRepublican]

"According to four attorneys who over the past two days have read a transcript of the President Bush's interview with investigators, Bush did not disclose to either investigators or the special counsel that he had authorized Cheney or any other administration official to leak portions of the NIE to Woodward and Miller or any other reporter. Rather, these people said the president said he frowned upon "selective leaks."

Bush also said during the interview two years ago that he had no prior knowledge that anyone on his staff had been involved in a campaign to discredit Wilson or that individuals retaliated against the former ambassador by leaking his wife's undercover identity to reporters."

vs.

"Libby testified that Cheney had received explicit instruction from President Bush to declassify a portion of the October 2002 NIE that said Iraq tried to purchase 500 tons of yellowcake uranium ore from Niger and share that information with reporters like Miller and Woodward, whose previous work proved to be sympathetic to the administration and would help to discredit Wilson, according to the court document and attorneys and current and former administration officials close to the investigation."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/040606Y.shtml

So in a he said, she said between Bush and Libby, who gets believed? What other info might Fitzgerald have that might prove the issue one way or another. If he has emails to Bush showing he was kept informed, doesn't that mean Bush is guilty of Obstruction?

[papau]

1. the emails do prove "Obstruction" - IMHO n/t

n/t

[Beetwasher]

4. Right, I'm Willing To Be There's Additional Evidence Contained in the

"Misplaced" emails that implicate Chimpy.

[rodeodance]

2. Libby is squealing. That is a start. Will have see how this plays out

[quiet.american]

3. The key word is "testified" in my book.

Libby testified, assumably under oath, to his statement. Granted, he's lied before under oath, however, now being under indictment for exactly that, I'd think he's not going for a double-header in that category.

Bush, to my knowledge, since stealing his way into office, has never testified under oath about anything. It will be interesting to see how he tap-dances around testifying under oath as to these revelations.

[shraby]

5. You must have missed this observation:

The officials, some of whom are attorneys close to the case, added that more than two dozen emails that the vice president's office said it recently discovered and handed over to leak investigators in February show that President Bush was kept up to date about the circumstances surrounding the effort to discredit former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

[warrens]

6. Paper trail

Either Bush signed something declassifying the NIE and laying out what could be revealed, or he didn't. It ain't he said/she said, although they will probably try an executive privilige argument if someone demands the actual order. And if they do so, Bush is guilty.

[OzarkDem]

7. Bring him in

put him under oath and question him.