I'm sure you disagree with me, else you wouldn't post.
Naturally, I have to concede that the indicment is phrased in the context of Libby's discussions with Russert, Cooper and Miller, so it can't be literally true that teh indictment has "nothing" to do with conversations with reporters.
But the gravamen of the indictment is that Libby lied to investigators. Whether he lied to reporters, or told the truth to reporters is in itself, irrelvant. If he lied to reporters, and he tells the investigators that he lied to reporters (repeating the same lie), no false statement to investigators, and no grounds for indictment.
I've read the indictment. I'm convinced Fitz is either confused or intent on prosecuting an indictment with or without evidence.
Like I said, you disagree with my take on the indictment.
>> Whether he lied to reporters, or told the truth to reporters is in itself, irrelvant.<<
I understand that, but the prosecutor doesn't seem to. No, I don't think Fitz is stupid enough to say, "Libby lied to Cooper, so let's indict him." What the problem is, as stated, is that Fitz doesn't understand what Libby was saying -- i.e. that he was in effect lying to reporters, and one of the statements Libby made to investigators was untruthful but it was meant to be untruthful -- to demonstrate to the investigators that he was, in fact, lying to reporters. Yet, the investigators took the statement at face value.
In other words, if I told my wife I was at a lodge meeting last night and that wasn't true, but told investigators, "I was at a lodge meeting" in reponse to the question of, "what did you tell your wife," these investigators would indict me for lying when I wasn't lying to THEM. I was telling them how I was lying to my wife.
Based upon your statement, I would like you to demonstrate how this isn't true (if you believe it isn't) rather than state "he isn't being charged with lying to reporters" in a conclusory fashion.
I don't believe for a second Libby is stupid enough to commit perjury.