If the disclosure of Plame's name did not violate the IIPA because, for example, she wasn't a NOC (something Fitz knew early on) he should have said so and closed down the investigation. In correspondence with Libby's lawyers he has not provided proof that she was. He has conceded that the following reporters knew of her employment at the CIA before July 14, 2003:Woodward,Miller, Novak, Cooper and Pincus BTW. (I'm positive there are more including Andrea Mitchell) so his claim in the indictment that this was unknown outside the intelligence community is false.
I do not pretend to be an expert on the question of perjury traps, prosecutorial misconduct. Nevertheless, I think the ONLY reason the obstruction charge is in the indictment is to hide the fact that the ONLY reason for continuing the investigation after it was clear the jurisdictional predicate was missing is precisely to TRAP witnesses into contradicting eachother or themselves in lengthy testimony over a period of time.
What important investigation was being obstructed? Nothing he could have said would have possibly led to evidence that would have made prosecution under the IIPA possible.
That's a completely separate argument from what appears in the indictment.
In correspondence with Libby's lawyers he has not provided proof that she was.
That's because the indictment isn't a "leak" indictment. There is no requirement to prove or even provide evidence of the underlying cause, in order to prosecute false statement, perjury or obstruction.
Fitz doesn't have to address the question "was she covert" in order to prosecute (to use shorthand) perjury.
his claim in the indictment that this was unknown outside the intelligence community is false.
The official stance from President Bush, the DoJ and the prosecutor is that the case, the leak, is serious! Sacre Bleu! There has to be some pretense of secrecy to support the indictment. It wouldn't do, to use an extreme example, to assert that "nobody knows Bret Farve is the QB for the GB Packers" and we are investigating the leak. But even if the investigation is bogus, those who testify are (I think reasonably) expected to do so truthfully.
What would the harm be if Libby had told investigators about his contact with CIA, and that he knew Plame's status for a fact? The testimony is secret.
I think the ONLY reason the obstruction charge is in the indictment is to hide the fact that the ONLY reason for continuing the investigation after it was clear the jurisdictional predicate was missing is precisely to TRAP witnesses into contradicting each other or themselves in lengthy testimony over a period of time.
The question is, "did you know of Plame's status outside the rumor mill?" Libby said "No," in so many words, and only a few months after he'd contacted the CIA.
Did he lie? or did he forget? That's what the jury will be tackling.
What important investigation was being obstructed?
None. As you note, there is no indictment, and never will be one that charges "outing" of Plame.
Thanks for the venue that prompted me to prepare yet another rephrasing of the indictment. The legal principle being defended is "truthful testimony, regardless of the stupidity and/or motive of the investigator."