I agree. If they lied that is one thing. If a date is wrong or the time of day changes that is another issue.
That is what I think is going on here.
The main issue is this: Was Valerie Plame a covert agent?
If yes, we have an issue. If no, then there is no crime.
Am I correct or am I being too simplistic?
Yes.......both.......
I think we can safely say that there was no crime committed there. That is why the focus in recent days has changed to their testimonies. Whether or not they should have been there is no longer the point. If they lied while under oath in a Grand Jury then they have perjured themselves. I hope this is not the case, but we shall see.
Not that crime anyway. Perjury and obstruction are possible crimes regardless of the underlying investigation. Miller even went to jail for refusing to testify, contempt of court. Granted, the charge was civil contempt, but rumor has it Fitzgerald was willing to hit her with criminal contempt, if that's what it would take to pry her testimony loose.
You are not being simplistic.
This is looking like a Martha Stewart-type prosecution.
If you can't prove the original crime, then drag your intended target before the grand jury four times and trap him in conflicting stories.
If Plame was not outed by anybody, then Fitzgerald should simply drop the case.
But, I fear he has caught the "prosecutor run amok" disease.
If I were you... I would recuse myself and ask for an independent prosecutor.
Close, but the main issue is found in the last line of the story.
--- The New York Times report said there's no indication that either Cheney or Libby knew about Plame's undercover status or that her identity was classified. ---