[calreaganfan]

"I agree, I posted this same thoughts 5 mins. after the papers were released yesterday."

Libby's statements to the grand jury about his conversation with Russert are relevant in the sense that they can help to determine which of two witnesses (Libby or Russert) is lying. Since what Libby claims he told Russert is false (that he [Libby] didn't know about Plame before he spoke to Russert), the Feds can use that statement as evidence that Libby is lying and Russert is telling the truth.

[MamaLucci]

Since what Libby claims he told Russert is false (that he [Libby] didn't know about Plame before he spoke to Russert), the Feds can use that statement as evidence that Libby is lying and Russert is telling the truth

Please read this again.....I think this is the nub of the situation.....

In point b., he accuses Libby of lying in the statement above because Libby was well aware that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA. Funny, though, Libby didn't say in that testimony that he didn't know that Plame worked for the CIA. Libby testified that ******he told Russert***** that he didn't know. Is lying to a reporter a crime?

IOW, Libby was LYING TO RUSSERT in their conversation about Plame.

[ironman]

"Since what Libby claims he told Russert is false (that he [Libby] didn't know about Plame before he spoke to Russert), the Feds can use that statement as evidence that Libby is lying and Russert is telling the truth."

Libby's already owned up that he wasn't telling Russert the whole scoop. Lying to Russert is not material.