[Phocion]

Basically, Libby said one thing happened during the discussion with Russert and Russert said another.

That's part of the one charge, and I agree that's a weak point of the indictment. He's more likely to get nailed about saying (about his conversation with Russert) "at this point in time I did not recall that I had ever known, and I thought this was something he was telling me that I was first learning." In the light of testimony from numerous individuals who had heard him speaking about Plame earlier, a jury might find that hard to believe.

[dirtboy]

He's more likely to get nailed about saying (about his conversation with Russert) "at this point in time I did not recall that I had ever known, and I thought this was something he was telling me that I was first learning."

But Fitz is saying THAT NEVER HAPPENED! So how can Fitz simultaneously indict Fitz for making a false statement and never making that statement?

[Phocion]

I'd just like to add that, regardless of whether people lied under oath or obstructed justice (crimes that if they occurred should indeed be punished), the widely-believed Democrat notion that this somehow shows the corruption of the Bush administration or shows that the entire Iraq War was fought under false pretenses is ridiculous. Nor did the revelation of Plame's name lead to any actual damage to US intelligence.

This whole thing should be a page 2 story.

[lepton]

He's more likely to get nailed about saying (about his conversation with Russert) "at this point in time I did not recall that I had ever known, and I thought this was something he was telling me that I was first learning." In the light of testimony from numerous individuals who had heard him speaking about Plame earlier, a jury might find that hard to believe.

Yup.