[SharpTalons]

Didn’t Libby lie under Oath? Why I thought the Wilson/plame affair was hyperbole, we can’t absolve Libby’s error. He should have not lied.

[listenhillary]

He didn’t remember a conversation that had taken place two years ago.

[Verginius Rufus]

I don't know if Libby lied about anything. His recollections differed from those of Tim Russert, and Fitzgerald chose to believe Russert (whose memory was not always right). I think it's possible Libby was right and Russert wrong, or if Libby's version was wrong, he was trying his best to remember and give a truthful answer. I have not studied the case in sufficient detail to know, and maybe there is conclusive evidence somewhere in Fitzgerald's material, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility that Fitzgerald went after Libby because he needed to get someone to justify his witchhunt.

[Balding_Eagle]

Didn’t Libby lie under Oath? Why I thought the Wilson/plame affair was hyperbole, we can’t absolve Libby’s error. He should have not lied.

Libby is an example why it's best to claim the 5th whenever possible.

[Condor51]

*** Didn’t Libby lie under Oath? ***

Not exactly.
His crime was remembering something different than Tim Russet in front of a Grand Jury and Fed Investigators. And we know that an ex Democratic operative and liberal (cough) journalist would never, ever, 'fib'.

Now, considering that Russet all of a sudden just went and 'suddenly died', maybe God was getting even for Russert 'misremembering'.

[IMissPresidentReagan]

IIRC, and admittedly I had difficulty mustering enough interest in this whole debacle to understand, I believe the “lie” was something about when he talked to Novak; etc....Under President Bush the media stretched the meaning of the word “lie” to mean anything that one stated, that may turn out to be incorrect later is a lie. So...under the new “definition” of lie...every time the weather doesn't turn out the way the weatherman predicts, the weatherman is a liar. I think Libby's answers may or may not have been correct, but I don't know that they were lies.

JMO.

[Oldpuppymax]

Libby did not “lie under oath.” After who knows how many rounds of questioning and questions being asked in different ways, two of his answers were different. It is the pure, nonsensical creation of a criminal offense by a prosecutor looking for some way to make his job seem legitimate. He had his “culprit” before any of the investigation began. The fact that Bush did not grant a full pardon to Libby is disgraceful. Inexcusable. But then 8 years of the “lesser of evils” occupying the White House resulted in exactly 3 good things: tax cuts, the war in Iraq being prosecuted and two strong constructionists elevated to the Supreme Court. (Of course Bush had to be forced into the nominations of Roberts and Alito.)

[P-Marlowe]

Didn’t Libby lie under Oath?

No. A lie (in a criminal context) is a deliberate misrepresentation of a material fact. There was no evidence that the subject matter was "material" inasmuch as the prosecutor already knew that Richard Armitage was the source of the leak, and there was no substantial evidence that any misrepresentation was deliberate.

Libby was railroaded.

If you don't believe that, then how much are you willing to bet that Burris is going to be indicted for lying to Congress?