The big deal is he never told investigators of his independent inquiry to the CIA. The indictment alleges that Libby tried to lead investigators away from that.
Is it because he said he first heard it from a reporter? Or did he say he didn't talk about it publicly until he heard it from a reporter. If that is the conflict, whew.
It's that he tried to convince investigators that the only source of his "knowledge" was the reporter-fed rumor mill. So reads the indictment.
Thanks for the information. If that is the case then he should be prosecuted.
What was not, and still is not clear to me from the indictment, and the presser with Fitzgerald, is how much evidence, from whom, they have to back up that charge.
Only a full boat trial will take care of that. What is odd though, is that Libby is a beltway lawyer. Doesn't it seem as if he SHOULD know not to do that? That is the piece of this that just doesn't make any sense to me at this point.
I still want to know how Fitzgerald obtained the notes about the Cheney meeting, whether Libby provided them.
"The big deal is he never told investigators of his independent inquiry to the CIA. The indictment alleges that Libby tried to lead investigators away from that."
You've been asked these questions in a dozen ways on a dozen thread, but I'll try again.
If Plame was not a covert CIA officer protected by the IIPA, what is the crime that was being investigated by Fitzgerald?
If there is no crime, how is Libby's testimony material?
If it is not material, how is it perjury?
And, also, can you name some other instances where someone had been indicted for perjury for similar non-material testimony?
Lastly, why is this so important to you? Do you think you have a higher regard for the rule of law than say, Joe DiGenova?