[Cboldt]

If the true source was the CIA and Libby wanted to mask that, a corrupt endeavor would be a desire to trick the investigators into thinking the information was derived from reporters.

"True source" being what? Of Libby's knowledge or belief? Or of "the leak?"

The false statement charge is the based on the former - that Libby had knowledge or belief from inquiry of the CIA, but Libby tried to hide that the source of his knowledge or belief from investigators. Instead, alleges the indictment, Libby tried to mislead investigators to the conclusion tha Libby obtained his belief from contact with reporters.

However, if the true source was not the CIA but actually was a reporter then can a corrupt endeavor occur?

If the fact pattern is changed so that Libby did not have any knowledge of Plame except what he heard from reporters, then the indictment could not be brought. The indictment depends on Libby having knowledge of Plame independently from conversations with reporters.

[Raycpa]

The indictment depends on Libby having knowledge of Plame independently from conversations with reporters.

Doesn't the "corrupt endeavor" also impose an obligation to show that Libby had a reason to muddy the waters for the prosecutor? Isn't that reason to avoid mentioning the source was actually an administrative source? Once that is gone, does Libby have any motive to engage in a corrupt endeavor to mislead?

[sinkspur]

You're doing your best to hold up Fitzgerald's end of this argument. However, it is clear from the major confusion among highly competent posters on this website that Ted Wills will have a very easy time creating such confusion and doubt with a Washington jury.

In addition, he will easily impeach the string of reporters he will call, who will say "I was confused", "I don't know," "I don't recall", "I'm not sure." IOW, even more doubt and confusion.

If Fitzgerald doesn't realize that he is holding a losing hand here, he's much dumber than I think he is.

[Torie]

I think the indictment to stand depends on whether a reporter told Libby about Plame before Libby told some other reporter about Plame. On that turns whether or not what Libby said his conversations with reporters entailed were basically true, or basically untrue, assuming the reporters version of the conversations are true. Even if the indictment stands, getting a conviction will be tough, and if the jury not drawn from a pool of Bush hostile folks, bascially near impossible, from what we now seem to know.