Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: calreaganfan
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.

222 posted on 10/29/2005 8:03:36 AM PDT by MamaLucci (Mutually assured destruction STILL keeps the Clinton administration criminals out of jail.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies ]


To: MamaLucci

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

You're missing the point. Libby is not being indicted for lying to a reporter. He's being indicted for lying to a grand jury and giving false statements to the FBI. Russert says the conversation with Libby never took place so obviously someone is lying. What the Feds are saying is that because what Libby claims he told Russert is demonstrably false, then that's an indication that it's Libby who is lying and Russert who is telling the truth.


230 posted on 10/29/2005 8:29:04 AM PDT by calreaganfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson