It's also very flimsy - why accept the "recollections" of reporters and commentators (particularly one who was already shown to have had a faulty memory) against those of Libby?
In any case, I thought the Martha Stewart thing was a dangerous precedent. Anyone should have the right to file a not-guilty plea without having to worry about being prosecuted essentially for having made use of their right to be considered innocent. The other thing that appalled me was that many Freepers, who seemed to have a particularly violent hatred of Martha Stewart, thought this perversion of justice was perfectly all right.
I think Fitzgerald is also setting a dangerous precedent here, essentially that of having to find some procedural crime or suggestion thereof even when there was no substance to the initial case.
I don't think it was ever supposed to be a crime to lie... unless you were under oath.
And if they insist you DO talk to them as if you were under oath, you should always have 5th amendment protection.
This whole mess seemed to me to be somehow a way of getting around the fifth amendment.
I must be missing something.
The "evidence" used to indict Libby for at least one count was a series of recollections made before the GJ about his discussion with Russert.
My read of those statements was that was describing his thought processes before the GJ - in which he was admittedly trying to deceive Russert - and *not* that he was trying to the GJ itself. It's possible you could read it either way, but that's precisely why it fails to be a solid charge.
My guess is that Tim Russert secretly recorded his phone conversation with Libby.
The reason I think that is that Fitz seems so extremely confident that it was Libby who lied about that conversation, not Russert.
Secretly recording one's phone conversations is not illegal in either D.C. or VA, IIRC (although it is in Maryland -- hence the prosecution of Linda Tripp).
I believe that Fitzferald knew Libby's first statements were not correct and allowed and encouraged Libby to repeat them to investigators and eventually the Grand Jury. It was the duty of investigators to confront Libby about misstatements when suspected in furtherance of the investigation.
To expand on Fitzgerald's lame baseball analogy what Fitzgerald did was; after the first hit batter took his base the Umpire (Fitzgerald) goes to the pitcher (Libby) and tells him, "Bet you can't do that again".
One thing you've got to say about Libby was that he was consistent.
Didn't you know that being attractive and wealthy are crimes? /sarc.