[Kryptonite]

In this case I think I'm right.

The investigation was initiated to determine if the law protecting the identity of covert agents was violated. For perjury to occur, a false statement must be material to the investigation of the underlying crime. From the perjury angle, sources are immaterial because there is no proof that anybody actually knew she was a covert agent or reasonably believed that she was at the time of the communications. It's immaterial whether Libby heard about Plame from Cheney or a reporter if Fitzgerald cannot prove that the source passed on information that Plame was a covert agent, as opposed to someone merely working for the CIA.

As far as your analogies are concerned, I find them inapt and untrue.

Jones sued Clinton for sexual harassment. Her case was settled.

Fuhrman was discredited, but never convicted of perjury.

[drjimmy]

In this case I think I'm right. The investigation was initiated to determine if the law protecting the identity of covert agents was violated. For perjury to occur, a false statement must be material to the investigation of the underlying crime.
If you go to the website set up last week by Fitzgerald, you can read the letter from Feb. 6, 2004, from acting attorney general James B. Comey, that widened the scope of Fitzgerald's investigation (emphasis added). It shows how you are wrong about getting a free ride for lying:
Dear Patrick:
At your request, I am writing to clarify that my December 30, 2003, delegation to you of "all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity" is plenary and includes the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted; and to pursue administrative remedies and civil sanctions (such as civil contempt) that are within the Attorney General's authority to impose or pursue.

[William Tell]

Kryptonite said: "Jones sued Clinton for sexual harassment. Her case was settled. Fuhrman was discredited, but never convicted of perjury."

From a quick Yahoo search: "Mark Fuhrman, a detective who was a witness at the O.J. Simpson trial pled guilty on October 2, 1996, to perjury for denying under oath that he had uttered slurs against blacks. He was placed on three years probation and fined $200 for a single count of felony perjury. "

Perhaps you would like to explain just how the "settlement" of the Paula Jones case resulted in Clinton losing his law license. Clinton was never convicted of perjury, but I think your on the wrong forum if you expect to convince many here that he didn't commit perjury as well as several counts of obstruction of justice, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and subornation of perjury.

[cynwoody]

Fuhrman was discredited, but never convicted of perjury.

Fuhrman plead no contest to a perjury charge and got probation and a fine of $200, after which he left the LAPD and moved to Idaho to pursue his career as an investigative journalist.

He probably deserves the lion's share of the credit for getting OJ off, given that the only reasonable theory under which one might find OJ not guilty was that The Man had framed him by tampering with the forensic evidence, and the exposure of Fuhrman's crypto-racism leant that theory credibility.