[roses of sharon]

Yep, lol, as if Libby, a lawyer, would lie over and over and over to numerous law enforcement, about conversations with his enemies, the MSM, knowing those dozens of people who could testify against him? When he could have taken the 5th?

Fitz had ZERO evidence to back up any lying, unlike with Stewart who tampered with phone logs.

It was a he said she said, it was faulty, confused, and erred memories of everyone who testified.

Fitz had discretion, like all Pros, he did not use it because this was political, and he knew he could get a political jury in DC.

Very simple.

[homer777]

"Yep, lol, as if Libby, a lawyer, would lie over and over and over to numerous law enforcement, about conversations with his enemies, the MSM, knowing those dozens of people who could testify against him? When he could have taken the 5th?"

Yep, because as we all know, lawyers never ever lie.

Who was that lawyer who lied about getting a blowjob from a fat chick, oh right, Bill Clinton.

[conservative in nyc]

Fitz had ZERO evidence to back up any lying, unlike with Stewart who tampered with phone logs.

It was a he said she said, it was faulty, confused, and erred memories of everyone who testified.

Unfortunately for Libby, Fitzgerald had enough evidence to get a jury to convict Libby on 4 of 5 counts. And it's harder for a jury to see this as a he said, she said when she (the reporters and other prosecution witnesses) testify, but he (Libby) doesn't. She said and he didn't. I think the defense made a big mistake not putting Libby on the stand.

Fitz had discretion, like all Pros, he did not use it because this was political, and he knew he could get a political jury in DC.

Perjury is perjury. If DC juries are so political, did Libby's lawyers even try to get the case moved outside of the Beltway? If not, why not? I honestly don't know the answer to that question - or if they even could have asked in a federal case.