I heard Fitz say he does not know who the leaker was because Libby obstructed the investigation.
Out of everything about the indictment this probably confuses me the most.
What Fitz is saying is "I can`t prove the original crime because Libby lied to me."
Well if that is the case than to know it is a lie means that one has to know what the truth is,which at that point would cause his statement to be illogical and false.
Wow, if Fitzie said that, he's setting the bar pretty high.
The only path to the truth on Plame was Libby?
AND, if the leak was not a crime (if Plame was not covert, etc.), then how can whatever Libby did be relevant to a "material fact" in the case?
It's like this:
Let's say "info x" is classified (covert).
It then is de-classified (no longer covert).
A SP is appointed to investigate who leaked "info x," which was not "covert" at the time it was leaked.
Since "info x" was not "covert" at the time it was leaked, no crime was committed.
A person has conversations about "info x", which at the moment is not "covert" info.
In the investigation into who leaked "info x," which was not "covert" at the time it was leaked, the person lies about who told him about "info x."
If it was not a crime to leak "info x," since it was not "covert" at the time it was leaked, WHAT CONSTITUTES A "MATERIAL FACT" IN THE INVESTIGATION?
Even if the person's lies obstruct the SP's ability to find out who leaked "info x," do those lies go to a "material fact" just because they might obstruct the SP's investigation of a non-criminal act?
Someone, tell me: how is what Libby allegedly lied about relevant to a "material fact"?