This is assuming that he lied in court. The quotes and accusations are cherry-picked and not given -- to my satisfaction -- full context. We will see.
BTW, we are witnessing a high-stakes game of chicken. Fitz threatens 30 years of jailtime (over this?). Libby shoots back that he will fight.
Both sides think the other doesn't want to go to court. Fitz' press conference made it clear that he doesn't.
In skimming the indictment, a few things struck me. One, Fitz referred to the sixteen words as "the sixteen words". That phrase is a Dem talking point and doesn't deserve to be in a formal court document. He really seems to be arguing the point of the left about the so-called sixteen words early in the timeline, characterizing articles from the New Republic, et al. in a sympathetic light.
A problem for Fitzgerald is that his own office leaked furiously these past two weeks. Schumer showed his hand and it's now clear he was told something.
Interesting that Joe Wilson is given such slack in the indictment: "Wilson stated that he believed, based on his understanding of government procedures, that the Office of the Vice President was advised of the results of his trip."
I'm not even convinced of the "facts" established in the timeline. Read the indictment PDF here. Libby is accused of lying about being the leaker to Russert, of lying about not being the leaker to Cooper, and I'm not sure of what he's accused of vis-a-vis Miller. Read #32 and #33 in the first indictment. Also, Fitzgerald is very sloppy in what he considers to be a lie. For example, Fitz called all of this a lie:
. . . . And then he said, you know, did you know that this – excuse me, did you know that Ambassador Wilson's wife works at the CIA? And I was a little taken aback by that. I remember being taken aback by it. And I said – he may have said a little more but that was – he said that. And I said, no, I don't know that. And I said, no, I don't know that intentionally because I didn't want him to take anything I was saying as in any way confirming what he said, because at that point in time I did not recall that I had ever known, and I thought this is something that he was telling me that I was first learning. And so I said, no, I don't know that because I want to be very careful not to confirm it for him, so that he didn't take my statement as confirmation for him.
But the stuff that I bolded is the only thing that could be proven false. The rest of it is only contradicted by the word of Russert. So you have to assume Russert is right.
Fitzgerald has a case here, IMHO, but a weaker one than is in the indictment (which is usually the case). I'd say 80% of the charges are that Libby must be lying because the reporters must be telling the truth. Cooper and Miller will be bad witnesses because of their previous public lies and Fitzgerald's press conference was a mess. Discovery will bring up the Who's Who article and others who hung out at cocktail parties with the Wilsons. I'd say Fitzgerald fears court far more than Libby, but now he's stuck. He has to get something. Now he's taking a risk: Will Libby make a deal?
Libby shoulnd't make a deal. How many non-communists personally had their careers ruined by Sen. McCarthy? This is far worse; Libby is being branded a traitor. By Michael Moore types! HA!
It is a partisan attack on a man and I would hope that the grievous wrong that is being done here would merit a Presidential pardon if he is convicted and harshly punished.
This is a case about a leak, which was not found to be criminal, and has turned into a case about making misstatements to the Grand Jury (whether deliberate or accidental). Meanwhile the secret Grand Jury proceedings have been leaked to the media with no visible effort being made to determine who is making the illegal leaks.
The left is cheering over this. Wonder if they like how much this media circus is costing the government.