At yesterday's hearing in the Libby Trial, Ari Fleischer testified under an immunity deal that he had eaten a lunch with Libby, who told him Mrs. Wilson worked at the CIA, that she played a role in sending her husband to Niger and the whole thing  was "hush hush." Fleischer also testified that he told two reporters after hearing similar information from White House counsel Dan Bartlett, The names of the two reporters, David Gregory who works for Tim Russert's MSNBC and  John Dickerson who once worked for Time and now works for Slate, were surprising because David Gregory seemed to deny knowledge of Plame before the Novak article and Dickerson had long ago written an account at complete odds with this version.

So, how to explain Ari's testimony? I've covered him for 12 years, since I reported on tax policy and he was a spokesman for the Ways and Means committee, and he's never lied to me. Shaded, wiggled, and driven me around the bend with his spin, yes. (I wasn't a fan of his book, either.) But he never outright lied, and I don't see how it would be in his interest here. More likely, he admitted to prosecutors more than he may have actually done because better to err on the side of assuming he disclosed too much than assuming he gave over too little. (Emphasis supplied.)

How does Ari's testimony affect the perjury and obstruction of justice case against Libby? It certainly complicates it. For starters, when this piece appears, it may get me out of my press seat and into that uncomfortable little witness box. It hurts the prosecution if Ari admitted something he didn't do, because they're relying on his memory. Libby is on trial for saying he didn't know about Wilson's wife and that he learned it from NBC's Tim Russert. Fleischer contradicts that. He claims that Libby told him about Wilson's wife at a lunch in early July, long before Libby ever talked to Russert. If they can poke holes in Ari's recollection of what he told me, they can raise doubts about what Ari remembers Scooter telling him.