Yes, to the extent he lies about how he learned of Plame's status. Part of the inquiry was "how did Plame's status make it's way to the press?" Libby was asked "How did you learn of Plame?" and according to the indictment, his answer was in the form of "I learned it first from the press." But in fact, the prosecutor has evidence that Libby first learned of it from his own inquiries to the CIA. If he'd told the GJ that he first learned of her ID from the CIA, then played mind games with the press, probably "no bill."
The "who did the disclosing" line of questioning is a material inquiry to probing a violation of 50 USC 421 - even if other elements of the crime (e.g., "covert" status) are known to be not met.
Certainly that could be the law, but is it?
Stated the way I just did (a lie on any fact material to any element of a crime) subjects one to perjury/etc. laws, Libby's indictment (assuming he did even what he's indicted for) makes sense.
Stated this way: a lie on a fact that is not material to the act criminalized by the pertinent law, then Libby's indictment might not make sense.
If you have time and inclination, kindly check out my other posts on this thread. I would be interested in your comments.
I understand that, but, again, how is how Plame's status made it's way to the press material if it did not violate any law for Plame's status to be revealed to the press?
If revealing Plame's status to the press was not illegal (because she was not covert), what about the investigation is "official" such that perjury/etc. laws apply?
As I have said elsewhere, what does the law require for an investigation to be "offical" such that justice can be obstructed by obstructing the investigation?
Does the investigation not have to have some relationship to determining if a crime was committed?
If the threshold elements for a crime were not met (Plame was not covert -- similarly one could not investigate child molestation if it was clear or reasonably knowable at the commencement of the investigation that the victim was not a "child" within the meaning of the law), how does the investigation, in fact, remain "official"?
Are you saying the law is the mere fact that a certain official officially launches an investigation is enough? There's no requirement that the investigation actually be about something within the authority and purview of the appointing official (such as a law enforcement purpose)?