[Cboldt]

I should have made it clear that my first sentence was the basis (from the indictment) for my second statement. I took the "classified" from his press conference where he said that Plame's job was classified (even though other's outside the agency knew about it, but it was just "not common knowledge").

My point is that this factoid is irrelevant, except inasmuch as it makes Plame a subject of speculation, i.e., she's not a public figure or otherwise well known; so discussion about her role in the Wilson visit fits the category of "things people might speculate about and be interested in."

Even if her status at the CIA is desk-jocky, and she has NO covert status whatsoever, the allegations in the indictment still hold water.

That's because the only allegations against Libby are that he was not truthful with the GJ, regarding where he first heard of Plame. Libby tried to finger reporters as his first source (alleges the indictment), when in fact his first source (and he knew it) was his independent inquiry to the CIA.

[wouldntbprudent]

That's because the only allegations against Libby are that he was not truthful with the GJ, regarding where he first heard of Plame. Libby tried to finger reporters as his first source (alleges the indictment), when in fact his first source (and he knew it) was his independent inquiry to the CIA.

If someone lies to a GJ, it's a terrible perversion of justice. Period.

But for it to be a crime, the lie has to be on a "material fact."

Is how Libby learned of Plame's status a "material fact" even if revelation of her status, by anyone, at the time it was revealed, did not violate any laws?