Yep. That's likely what Fitzgerald is doing, pulling a "Martha Stewart prosecution."
He can't prosecute for an actual crime, so he tries to trap somebody into lying or accusing them of not being entirely forthcoming in some previous testimony.
Prosecutorial ambition run amok.
Maybe, maybe not. Since we don't know exactly who said what before the grand jury, we don't know whether the prosecution is over-zealous or whether someone actually committed perjury. As a result, I'm willing to wait and see before stealing a page from the Democrat Playbook and participating in a whisper campaign to smear the special prosecutor.
exactly....
I didn't commit any crime while I was eating dinner, but if you haul me before a grand jury 4 separate times and ask me what I had for dinner, how did I fix it, who did I talk to, what time I ate it, what recipe did I use,..etc. I would probably give different answers depending on my state of mind at the time.
Does that make me a perjurer?
its worse then that. Stewart was guilty of insider trading (Waksal was convicted of it), but the prosecutors felt the burden was too high to prove. so "getting her" on the perjury - which she was given an opportunity to "correct" and take a plea deal - was OK in my book.
in this case, Rove and Libby are not guilty of the underlying crime, its a perjury trap as you say.
and to make it even worse yet again - Fitzgerald led these guys like lambs to the slaughter - they cooperated at every turn, Libby giving the 2nd release letter to Miller, he didn't give them target letters - and at the end of the day, he indicts them anyway. and Miller walks, given a chance to "correct" her testimony and supply the "missing" notes.
the whole thing stinks.