It all may depend on what the meaning of “it” is. That Clintonian echo emerged earlier today when David Addington, Vice President Cheney’s legal counsel at the time, described his meeting in September 2003 meeting with Scooter Libby in which Libby told Addington, ‘’I just want to tell you, I didn’t do it.'’ Addington added, ‘’I didn’t ask what the ‘it’ was.”

Will Addington’s testimony bolster prosecution arguments that Libby was worried about whether his conversations with reporters were improper? Did he lie to conceal them?

His attorneys have already alleged that some White House officials were trying to ‘sacrifice’ Libby to protect top political adviser Karl Rove. They have also hinted that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who was counsel to the president in 2003, may have been involved in that effort.

Addington showed Gonzales documents he reviewed before sending them to the Justice Department. After reviewing one note in which Cheney said Libby was being sacrificed to protect another staffer, Addington said he had showed it to Gonzales and also called Cheney’s personal lawyer, Terrence O’Donnell.

‘’You told Mr. O’Donnell you thought this was a very important document?'’ the defense asked, before the prosecution objected.

The trial thus far has focused on when Libby learned that Valerie Plame worked for CIA. His conversations with reporters are about to become the next focus of the case, with former New York Times reporter Judith Miller about follow Addington on the witness stand. Prosecutors claim Libby discussed Plame with Miller three times — twice before he says he first remembered learning Plame’s identity from Tim Russert.

Was the defense trying with its examination of Addington to show that Libby thought he was responding to an inquiry about who leaked to Novak and Phelps? He did not, as we now know. Is it possible that when Libby said, “I didn’t do it,” the ‘it’ he was referring to was the leak to Novak?

Some analysts believe the defense is ahead thus far, in that all of the prosecution witnesses (with the exception of Addington) have had problems with details of their memory — and the devil in this case will be in the details… If two government communications staffers, a State Department official and two CIA employees all had difficulty remembering precise details of who said what when, how can Scooter Libby, busy saving the world, figuring out how the sixteen words got in the SOTU address, and wondering if CIA was setting the Administration up — be expected to keep it all straight?

After lunch break, the prosecution re-examines Addington about the documents he reviewed. Contacts with any member of the news media about Wilson, his trip or his wife are in question — documents were sought pertaining to that.

Another document says prosecutors expect to be provided no later than 0cobert 10, 2003, all documents relating to Joseph Wilson, Africa trip or wife’s purported relationship with CIA.

Fitzgerald appears to be trying to undercut defense grounds that Libby was misled or confused about what was being investigated.