1. The process matters. If we all get a pass on telling what we know, then, well, so much for the truth. I can live with that, by the way, but don;t jive me with any "oath" BS.
2. Leaking is not a "first learker is guilty, everybody else gets a pass" crime.
Plus, Libby wasn't charged or accused of leaking. He told the investigators he didn't know Plame worked at the CIA. There was plenty of evidence that he knew this assertion about his knowledge was not true. Had nothing to do with whether he knew or thought she was a secret squirrel. He claimed to not know squat about where she worked.
-- The whole thing has become a rehearsal for the present overthrow of our Republic. And Bush wimped out! --
Slightly differnt model but I agree with where you put the blame. Libby could have said "Yeah, I know Pla,me worked at the CIA, and I told Russert, Miller and other that." He could have leaked like a sieve, and none of that would have been a crime.
In a paste-up investigation with a crime that had already been solved? There was no need to ever interview Libby in the first place. If an aggressive prosecutor gets after "Choldt' he will get him on something also. You seem to be stuck on the infraction, not the 'conspiracy'. I threaten Choldt with molesting his children 20 years ago and hope he will spill all the info I really want to destroy someone else.
Well, you likely know this... sorry to be argumentative.