And it would be quite ironic if Libby goes down for perjury because he was trying to hide the fact that he learned about Wilson's wife being at the CIA from Cheney by falsely claiming he learned about her from a reporter.
Because if Cheney learned from Tenet that Wilson's CIA wife got him sent to Niger, but Cheney mistakenly believed she was not covert but an open bureaucrat at CIA, and Cheney passed on this mistaken understanding to Libby, who then discussed it with reporters, neither Cheney nor Libby broke the law, and Libby would have been fine if he had simply told the truth.
Well Libby himself wouldn't have knowledge of her covert status in that scenario, only that he knew she was at the CIA.
Proving knowledge in criminal law requires proving either actual knowledge or a reasonable belief that the matter is true. I don't see anything beyond a reasonable doubt to indicate that anybody knew or believed her to be a covert agent at the time of the communications.
That's why Fitzgerald hasn't done anything yet (other than tacitly acquiesce in leaks), and why nobody's getting indicted for the underlying alleged *crime* or for perjury.
That's my take. We shall see.
It's hard for me to believe that Libby got where he is taking shortcuts with the truth. Why would he commit perjury? Did he expect that Cheney and Tenet would also commit perjury? Did they? Did Libby lie to his attorney? Or is his attorney incompetent?
Many of the reports I have read treat the questioning before the grand jury as if every question is an opportunity for redefining what the meaning of "is" is.
My expectation is that an examination into this matter would have included asking Libby details about any conversation with Cheney about Wilson, Plame, or yellowcake from Niger. If the topic of "who sent Wilson to Niger" was discussed? If so, who was it? How was this person described? By their relationship to Wilson? By their relationship with the CIA? By their status as a covert agent with the CIA? By their married name? By their unmarried name? By the nature of the work they did for the CIA?
I, for one, believe that Miller lied when she stated that she couldn't remember who provided the name "Flame" to her. Her public statement that she had a "deal" that she would not be asked about sources other than Libby is contradicted by her statement that she was asked who provided the name "Flame" and she answered.
When a witness says "I can't recall", that is an opportunity for asking many, many more questions. It is not the case that the examiner just shrugs and says, "Too bad. Let's just forget about it, then".
The examiner could ask Miller if she remembered writing the name down? If not, is it possible that someone else wrote it down? Did anyone else have access to her notebooks? Where was this notebood kept during the time that the notation could have been made? Is the notation made in Miller's handwriting? Is it a different pen or pencil from the rest of the notes? Does Miller recall if she made the notation at the moment the name was mentioned or did she make note of it later? Was she on the telephone at the time she made the notation? Does she recall thinking that the name "Flame" was unusual? Had she ever met anybody else named "Flame"?
Are there any other examples in her notes of adding information after a phone call which was not supplied during the phone call? What was the nature of the information added. Did she routinely get information from a research service to be later added to notes of phone calls?
How did she go about retrieving the notes of the call with Libby? Was it ready to hand when she made the additional notation? Did she read through the notes before or after making the additional notation?
It takes a gutsy liar to sit through all of that and claim "I don't recall" for every single question.
Libby would have to have planned to suffer the same consequences if he attempted to flat out lie about what he knew and how he knew it.
The lesson of Watergate is best summarized by the fact that over 60 people were convicted of crimes.