[oceanview]

I don't know that the judge will allow that, the charges against Libby don't have anything to do with Wilson. the only hope is that Fitzgerald's charging documents and press conference on the "outing" charge (no indictment mind you) are such a smear job, that the judge would allow the defense to go there.

[Shortstop7]

Wilson is nothing but a partisan hack. We know that Fitzy is too. The Dems make me ashamed of our country right now. Just let them keep it up, and we'll see these riots from the Muslims in this country. Those who choose to make everything about politics, make me downright ill.

[Treader]

You make a good point. Fitz narrowed the definition to obstruction. Regardless, Libby's law-dawgs will have a killing field of witness examinations.

[cgbg]

the charges against Libby don't have anything to do with Wilson

I beg to differ, and I hope Libby's defense attorney differs as well.

If Joe was blabbing about his wife all over DC and dozens of media types knew about Plame's ID before they talked to Libby then two good things happen for Libby's defense:

--While he may not have recalled correctly where he first heard of Plame's ID it would be possible that it was from some media contact and they got confused in his mind. Therefore there was no intent to lie, therefore no perjury.

--If Libby was merely confirming what reporters already knew if an offhand way (which appears to be in the case in at least some of the conversations) it was a minor part of the conversation and therefore easy to forget and confuse.

The underlying facts give context.

Perjury is not just "did you speak the truth" but "did you lie intentionally for some nefarious purpose". In this case the nefarious purpose would be to prevent the Special Prosecutor from finding out who leaked Plame's identity. If the leaker was Joe then it is illogical that Libby would be trying to hide Joe's identity. Therefore there is no perjury.

I also have a problem with a Special Prosecutor indicting someone for perjury when there is no underlying crime and no harm to the government. Even if the judge didn't buy into that argument and even if the judge instructed the jury to ignore such an argument, I know it would influence my vote on a jury and probably those of other jurers as well.