That's a variation on "there was no outing, therefore there can be no false testimony or statement" objection to the indictment. Fitz insinuated there was an outing, using terms like "employment status was classified" (irrelevant to the indictment) and lots of rhetoric in his press conference to paint a misleading picture that this is a "real" outing case.
Even President Bush contributes to that false impression, by saying "the investigation is a serious matter."
I've read the indictment from front to back with a mental picture of "what if all the reporters knew of Plame as of the year 2000?" and IMO, the indictment still stands for the violations it charges. The charges may fall on evidence not contained in the indictment, or on jury nullification. But, again IMO, the indictment is strong on its face as a matter of legal principle and simple logic; and Woodward's disclosure doesn't alter the analysis of whether or not the charges in the indictment are valid.
Of course it alters it.
A lie has to be about something, and that something is the facts in the case. But we now know that Fitzgerald never had the facts right. So of course Libby's story doesn't match up to Fitzgerald's version of the "facts", because Libby was telling the truth.
"That's a variation on "there was no outing, therefore there can be no false testimony or statement" objection to the indictment."
You seem immune to the concept that people are usually not charged with perjury if their alleged misrepresentations are not material to an underlying crime.
Previously it has been well argued that there is no crime, since there was no outing. (Even you seem to agree with this.)
And now we find that even if there was a crime, Libby's testimony was not key to it, since he was not the first leaker.
You seem to be making a career out of defending this indictment. You are on every thread on the subject 24/7 insisting that it is a legitimate indictment.
How many other people have been indicted for perjury under similar circumstances? Let's have some citations.
This is selective prosecution under a technicality. A "process crime." It smacks of a vindicativeness since Fitzgerald wasn't able to find what he wanted to find.
There is the law and there is the spirit of the law. This indictment violates the spirit of the law in several ways.
I believe it is more of a crime to criminalize political differences than anything Libby is accused of.
"But, again IMO, the indictment is strong on its face as a matter of legal principle and simple logic; and Woodward's disclosure doesn't alter the analysis of whether or not the charges in the indictment are valid."
So in other words, the seriousness of the charge trumps the lack of material or testimonial evidence in this matter. Of course, logic DOES in fact dictate that Woodward's disclosure UTTERLY alters the anlysis of the indictment's validity.
For all your self-congratulatory wordsmithing, you are unable to change your spots.