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.
You and me both.
He Lied to reporters. He told the truth to the GJ. Where is the purjury??
I wasn't clear. There are two parts to this:
1) Every reporter (3) has testified contrary to what Libby has testified to.
2) Libby testified that he didn't know about Plame, when not only all the reporters, but also other information, shows that he DID know about Plame before he talked to reporters.
He could argue that when he told the reporters he didn't know Plame he was just lying, but when he was asked in the GJ why he said he didn't know her, he said it was because he really didn't know her.