This indictment looks pretty solid, at least the obstruction.
According to the indictment, Libby testified to conversations he had with Russert, Cooper, and Miller. His testimony about each of those conversations was refuted by the people he talked to.
The one thing I see that might be shady here is this: IN each of these statements, there is also a "falsehood" in the statment, namely that LIBBY said he kept telling people he didn't know about Plame being a CIA agent. But the evidence shows from multiple people that LIBBY had been briefed several times about her specifically, and that he had told others.
If you could get over the 1st part, where all the reporters are contradicting his testimony, you might be able to get over the 2nd part thusly:
"I accurately testified that I lied to the reporters about what I knew".
It seems clear that Libby KNEW who Wilson's wife was, that he knew she worked for the CIA. He knew this before his conversations with reporters.
Am I understanding right:
Libby lied to the press, but told the truth to the court. Where's purjury here?
This is what is bothering me. If Libby testified on what he said to reporters, even if what he said to these reporters was false, how is that lying to the Grand Jury?
If Libby didn't tell the reporters the truth about what he knew at the time, how can he then tell the GJ that he told them the truth.
I am confused by all this.