If you reread my post, you will see that I hold the idictment is based on a lie about a material point.
There are other lies that would literally be irrelevant - e.g., in this case, who cares what he had for lunch, who cares what he names his dog, who cares if he has a pet turtle, etc. In this case, he could lie about that stuff.
But in this case, he cannot lie about where and how he first learned of Plame, and he cannot knowingly point fingers at the press as first giving him that information if he knows he first got that information via independent research, inquiry to the CIA.
I agree,this factually proves there is a double standard for democrats and republicans,and any republicans should be outraged!
I agree that Libby should not lie. What makes absolutely no sense is that a lawyer would not know that. What on earth could Libby expect, he surely had to know that he would be indicted for lying?
Could you elaborate?
Does it not matter under the law whether what is being investigated is or is not a crime?
In other words, can a person violate the false statements/obstruction of justice statutes if he lies during an investigation of whether the sky is blue?
Maybe that's the case, based on the idea that no one should ever impede ANY official investigation. But is that the law?
If someone launched a SP investigation into who left sensitive, but not classified info in the trash can and early in the investigation it became clear that no crime was committed, what lines of questioning are based on facts *material* to the investigation, such that lying or obstructing investigation into the facts constitutes a separate crime?