It is what the case is REALLY about, but what the case was, as a point of law, about, was whether Libby lied about talking to Russert or Matt Cooper. We agree that WHAT he talked about was irrelevant, but you can't lie about anything to a GJ, including "Are your shoes loafers?" and they are and you say, "No, they are hiking boots."
The point is, the prosecutor was looking for a "spit on the sidewalk" charge, and Libby, like an idiot, gave him one.
That was my take. So then this verdict does not help at all the Plame suit against Libby et al.
That was my take. So then this verdict does not help at all the Plame suit against Libby et al.