Only because you make up a question that isn't asked in the indictment.
You cited paragraph 32.a., which describes Libby's testimony. Paragraph 33.a. expresses directly why your hypothetical isn't relevant, Libby is charged with making misleading statements to the GJ.
33. It was further part of the corrupt endeavor that at the time defendant LIBBY made each of the above-described materially false and intentionally misleading statements and representations to the grand jury, LIBBY was aware that they were false, in that:The question is: did Libby tell the DOJ that he was surprised to hear this info, or was he telling the DOJ that he told Russert he was surprised to hear the info? I haven't seen anything that shows the prosecutor understands that Libby was intentionally lying to reporters.a. When LIBBY spoke with Tim Russert of NBC News on or about July 10, 2003:
i. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and
ii. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA; in fact, LIBBY had participated in multiple prior conversations concerning this topic, including on the following occasions:
- In or about early June 2003, LIBBY learned from the Vice President that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA in the Counterproliferation Division;
- On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY was informed by a senior CIA officer that Wilson's wife was employed by the CIA and that the idea of sending him to Niger originated with her;
- On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was informed by the Under Secretary of State that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA;
- On or about June 14, 2003, LIBBY discussed "Joe Wilson" and "Valerie Wilson" with his CIA briefer, in the context of Wilson's trip to Niger;
- On or about June 23, 2003, LIBBY informed reporter Judith Miller that Wilson's wife might work at a bureau of the CIA;
- On or about July 7, 2003, LIBBY advised the White House Press Secretary that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA;
- In or about June or July 2003, and in no case later than on or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Assistant to the Vice President for Public Affairs that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA;
- On or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY advised reporter Judith Miller of his belief that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA; and
- On or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY had a discussion with the Counsel to the Office of the Vice President concerning the paperwork that would exist if a person who was sent on an overseas trip by the CIA had a spouse who worked at the CIA;
The prosecutor says Libby was lying to investigators and to the GJ.
Maybe you can explain the relevance you see in an allegation that Libby was lying to reporters. Lying to reporters is not illegal. The charge, in a conclusory fashion as stated by the prosecutor, is lying to investigators and the GJ. That is what the words in the indictment say.
>> The prosecutor says Libby was lying to investigators and to the GJ.<<
I know what the prosecutors are saying and what they think. What I'm trying to get through to you is that they are either mistaken or intentionally ignoring the fact that the lies that they allege on Libby's part are NOT lies to the GJ or the FBI, but statements made to the GJ or the FBI about lies Libby told to reporters.
Can you point to me anything in the inidictment or anything else in Libby's testimony that was, in fact, an erroneous statement of fact? When I stated "I went to a lodge meeting", I was telling the investigator what I told my wife, not that I actually went to the lodge meeting. In this case, the investigator is charging me with the false statement that I made under oath, saying "I went to a lodge meeting," when I did no such thing.
I believe that in at least SOME of Libby's statements that are the basis of the indictment, the prosecutor is charging Libby with perjury about the statements Libby made to reporters that are, in fact untrue. It isn't, as you seem to be getting confused about, that the prosecutor is charging Libby with lying to Russert; it is that the prosecutor believes that what Libby said to Russert was what Libby believes to be true -- and what Libby stated as fact, and it isn't.
None of what you posted refute that.
>> Maybe you can explain the relevance you see in an allegation that Libby was lying to reporters. <<
I HAVE. Three times at least. It isn't that there is an ALLEGATION that Libby lied to reporters. Its that there is an allegation that Libby lied to prosecutors when he stated what he told reporters, when those statemenst were, in fact, untrue. As I stated in my previous post, since the prosecutor does not state in his indictment that he understands Libby was lying to reporters, I'm not sure the prosecutor understands the distinction between Libby's statements to the GJ/FBI about his discussions with reporters and what Libby was stating to the GJ/FBI that was meant to be statements of fact.
If you, like the prosecutor, believe Libby lied, it is YOUR burden to show what he lied about. You haven't come close to that.