indictments, yeah!

/gloat

widening investigation

/gloat

Speculation??? Sensationalism?? Trying to be the "first on the block"?? ...all of it without any substantiating evidence or facts to back anything up? ....LOL!

Baron Max

sing like a bird, libby
do not be the fall guy
do not be the sacrifical lamb
bring down your cowardly bosses who cannot take responsibilty

bush = treasongate
clinton - monicagate

hahahaha

Speculation??? Sensationalism?? Trying to be the "first on the block"?? ...all of it without any substantiating evidence or facts to back anything up? ....LOL!

Baron Max

i am in such a good mood, mr max, that i shall reply yes to all!

/gloat

bye bye, ole harry
watch yer back, rove old chap
christians backstabbing bush

/gloat

bye bye, ole harry
watch yer back, rove old chap
christians backstabbing bush

/gloat


This is a good day Gustav. And don't think that Scooter is going to be the sacraficial lamb. He will start singing like a Bird. Fitz was brilliant to indicte Scooter first. And you're right, he'll be singing his ass off.

Just emember, folks, an indictment is NOT proof of guilt or innocence. An indictment is nothing more than the Grand Jury thinking that, perhaps, there's enough evidence to go to trail. The trail ain't over yet .....not by a loong, looooong sight.

So, Gustav, you shouldn't be "gloating" yet ......and I ain't figured out just what YOU have to "gloat" about??? You're just repeating something that someone else has said or written ...is that something for YOU to "gloat" about? If so, how?

Baron Max

Then why did he resign? He's guilty as hell, that's why no indictments (yet) on the actual crime of outing Plame, Fitzgerald couldn't get the truth from these swine. I have a hard time being happy about this whole sick episode.

Then why did he resign? He's guilty as hell, ....

That ain't proof of guilt and you know it! Or are you saying that that's all that we should need to convict ANYONE to prison??? That's all you need to send someone to prison and possibly ruin the rest of their lives??

...Fitzgerald couldn't get the truth from these swine.

How does HE know what the truth is? And let's not forget that Mr. Fitz still has to PROVE that "Scotter" actually lied in lieu of just forgetting details, etc. Perjury is one of the most difficult cases to prove in court .....the prosecution must, MUST show that there was INTENT to mislead (as opposed to just forgetting some essential facts). Damned difficult cases.

Well, if ye're sick of it already, prepare youself for several years of "investigation" and trial ......and I think it'll be a cold day in hell when this goes to trial.

Baron Max

Libby fell on his sword to protect Cheney and Rove. He will be handsomely rewarded, no doubt. What I don't understand is why no one is discussing the corollary - a chief of staff (especially in THAT White House) never, ever does anything on his own responsibility. It might be his idea, but I'll bet Libby never even took a dump without Cheney's approval. Why we would think that Libby was solely responsible for this whole thing is beyond me.

No, of course an indictment is not proof of guilt. But it may open the door a crack to the truth, and perhaps other people will be willing to come forward and tell what they know.

...and perhaps other people will be willing to come forward and tell what they know.

Or more likely to clam up and never, ever say another word to anyone about anything for as loong as they live!

If I were in government, I'd never say a word ...ever! And most surely not to a reporter.

Baron Max

Have any of you lefties actually read the indictment?

I'll be leaving some cookies and milk next to my tree for Fitzgerald Clause. :p

However, I sense that he won't be alive much longer, and not due to my cookies 'n milk.

- N

Have any of you lefties actually read the indictment?
Yes.

Our 27 months of hell
By Joseph C. Wilson IV

AFTER THE two-year smear campaign orchestrated by senior officials in the Bush White House against my wife and me, it is tempting to feel vindicated by Friday's indictment of the vice president's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

...But more important, they did it as part of a clear effort to cover up the lies and disinformation used to justify the invasion of Iraq. That is the ultimate crime....

more... (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-wilson29oct29,1,5237501.story?ctrack=1&cset=true)

Have any of you lefties actually read the indictment?

what is your point?
lets assume i have not

...part of a clear effort to cover up...

After all the investigation by Fitz, it doesn't seem like "a clear effort" to him!

So is this just one more person's wildly unfounded accusation without any evidence or factual substantiation?

Baron Max

The one person happens to be Joe Wilson. The facts are now out there and obvious, stop pretending to be nieve.

Tell me, why wasn't the outing of Plame payback for Wilson revealing that a major aspect of Bush's justification for invading Iraq was a lie?

Was this just a coincidence?

Are you in favor of undermining the war on terror?

The one person happens to be Joe Wilson.

So what? How would he know about a cover-up? And if he does, why isn't it being used by the special prosecutor to indict Rove, et al?

The facts are now out there and obvious, ...

Oh, really? Where? And if you know, why don't you tell the special prosecutor so he can dole out the indictments?

And, Spider, how would YOU like to be convicted on the evidence that's been presented so far????

Baron Max

So what? How would he know about a cover-up?
He feels, with good reason, due to the suspicious timing of his report and his wife's outing, that the outing was politically motivated and not just a mistake. This can't be proven in a court of law, unless someone rats out a member of their own. So, you are lucky there.

I believe the facts uncovered in the indictment are true, you are free to believe otherwise. The facts uncovered point to a Libby cover-up. Nothing more can be proven unless Libby (or someone) tells all he knows. He may not.

And if he does, why isn't it being used by the special prosecutor to indict Rove, et al?
Sometimes circumstantial evidence is very strong, like when there's a fish in the milk... or a turd blossom in the White House.

You can play dumb, but someone's a traitor.

the outing was politically motivated

There is no outing, or he would have been charged with it.

Libby cover-up

Exactly, what was he covering up?

It does seem clear that he did give some false information. And, if found guilty he should be dealt with. But what is not clear is that he was covering up.

...the outing was politically motivated and not just a mistake. This can't be proven in a court of law,...
Sometimes circumstantial evidence is very strong, ...
..., but someone's a traitor.

How would YOU like to be convicted on such weak, circumstantial evidence? Would you still believe that it was just?

...The facts uncovered point to a Libby cover-up.

From the indictment, I'd say that Libby lied to the grand jury ....BUT that doesn't "point" to a systematic, widespread "cover-up". He might have been lyiing for his OWN special reasons ...having nothing to do with the administration or with anyone else.

...you are free to believe otherwise.

Well, thankfully, in a court of law, we aren't supposed to convict someone because of our "belief". A court of law should use facts and evidence, don't you think? And I also think that one should do the same whenever one is inclined to make accusations of criminal activity. You should try it sometime.

Baron Max

There are a few things you two misunderstand.
There is no outing, or he would have been charged with it.
False. What Fitz said at his press conference is that it was so far impossible to determine who outed Plame, due to the obstruction of justice and perjory that occurred. Also, Fitz isn't done.

Exactly, what was he covering up?
Who outed Plame, and why.

How would YOU like to be convicted on such weak, circumstantial evidence? Would you still believe that it was just?
The evidence for perjory and obstruction of justice does not seem circumstantial, and this is what Libby is charged with. The underlying conspiracy which I feel occurred cannot be charge yet due to the obstruction of justice and lying, but the circumstantial evidence for this is strong.

From the indictment, I'd say that Libby lied to the grand jury ....BUT that doesn't "point" to a systematic, widespread "cover-up". He might have been lyiing for his OWN special reasons ...having nothing to do with the administration or with anyone else.
Maybe, but it's doubtful. I think you have faith in the Bush administration's basic goodness, but I haven't taken a swig of that kool-aid.

Well, thankfully, in a court of law, we aren't supposed to convict someone because of our "belief". A court of law should use facts and evidence, don't you think? And I also think that one should do the same whenever one is inclined to make accusations of criminal activity. You should try it sometime.
Thankfully, we have a fair prosecutor, and I think he will do his best in this case. He is required to make a narrow determination about law. I can make any accusations I like, because I am able to see the big picture. I never said I have solid proof of a conspiracy to smear Joe Wilson, I didn't participate in their private conversations, but it is consistent with this administration's methods and this indictment.

What Fitz said ..., due to the obstruction of justice and perjory that occurred.

No, dammit!!!! The charge of perjury has NOT been proven!! It has been alleged ....and so far there has been no evidence that, EVEN IF Libby "lied", one MUST prove that he did so INTENTIONALLY. And that, my dear Spider, is one of the toughest of all to prove. And, YES, it must be proven.

So please, quit saying it like it's a proven fact ....you're just being sensationalist in order to make your argument seem "righteous"!

Also, Fitz isn't done.

Then all of this is just idle, silly, wasted SPECULATION, huh? ;=)

The underlying conspiracy which I feel occurred...

Hmm, how do you feel about people who believe in god without any evidence whatsoever? And some people believe in ghosts, too. And isn't your belief quite similar? People can and do believe in many things, but that does NOT make them true. People can also post things on an Internet site, but that also doesn't make them true.

I can make any accusations I like, ...

And it seems that you do, too! But you should also understand that it's not a very nice thing to do. Or do you also do such things in your real life? Do you walk around town making nasty accusations of others just for your own perverted fun n' games? Do you also like it when others make nasty accusation about you?

Baron Max

Perjury hasn't been proven yet, I agree, but Fitzgerald said that due to what appears to be the obstruction and perjury, the underlying facts of the case (the treason part) could not be determined.

My speculation may be premature, in your opinion, but it is not silly. This is a very serious episode. In my opinion, worse than Watergate. There is ample evidence in the indictment to prove to my own satisfaction that Libby is guilty. Let those who have eyes see. Kerry was slandered, his wife was slandered, McCain was slandered, his wife was slandered, this is Rove's modus operandi. There is a pattern here. The Niger document, that Bush relied on for the 16 words, was a forgery, and Bush knew it, because Wilson reported it. Plame's identity was leaked. These are facts. From this I deduce that Plame's identity was leaked as retribution. This is just a deduction but it's consistent with the pattern, therefore it's not just idle speculation, it's a reasonable assumption.

Does Bush make war for his own perverted reasons? Because he seems to make up a new reason every month.

Edit,
today in a closed senate session:
"The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions," [Harry] Reid said...

Fitzgerald (Source:washington post): "the way our system of justice works, if information is gathered about people and they're not charged with a crime, we don't hold up that information for the public to look at. We either charge them with a crime or we don't."

Fitzgerald (source:washington post):"Let me talk you through what the indictment alleges.

The indictment alleges that Mr. Libby learned the information about Valerie Wilson at least three times in June of 2003 from government officials.

Let me make clear there was nothing wrong with government officials discussing Valerie Wilson or Mr. Wilson or his wife and imparting the information to Mr. Libby.

But in early June, Mr. Libby learned about Valerie Wilson and the role she was believed to play in having sent Mr. Wilson on a trip overseas from a senior CIA officer on or around June 11th, from an undersecretary of state on or around June 11th, and from the vice president on or about June 12th.

It's also clear, as set forth in the indictment, that some time prior to July 8th he also learned it from somebody else working in the Vice President's Office.

So at least four people within the government told Mr. Libby about Valerie Wilson, often referred to as "Wilson's wife," working at the CIA and believed to be responsible for helping organize a trip that Mr. Wilson took overseas.

In addition to hearing it from government officials, it's also alleged in the indictment that at least three times Mr. Libby discussed this information with other government officials.

It's alleged in the indictment that on June 14th of 2003, a full month before Mr. Novak's column, Mr. Libby discussed it in a conversation with a CIA briefer in which he was complaining to the CIA briefer his belief that the CIA was leaking information about something or making critical comments, and he brought up Joe Wilson and Valerie Wilson.

It's also alleged in the indictment that Mr. Libby discussed it with the White House press secretary on July 7th, 2003, over lunch. What's important about that is that Mr. Libby, the indictment alleges, was telling Mr. Fleischer something on Monday that he claims to have learned on Thursday.

In addition to discussing it with the press secretary on July 7th, there was also a discussion on or about July 8th in which counsel for the vice president was asked a question by Mr. Libby as to what paperwork the Central Intelligence Agency would have if an employee had a spouse go on a trip.

So that at least seven discussions involving government officials prior to the day when Mr. Libby claims he learned this information as if it were new from Mr. Russert. And, in fact, when he spoke to Mr. Russert, they never discussed it.

But in addition to focusing on how it is that Mr. Libby learned this information and what he thought about it, it's important to focus on what it is that Mr. Libby said to the reporters.

In the account he gave to the FBI and to the grand jury was that he told reporters Cooper and Miller at the end of the week, on July 12th. And that what he told them was he gave them information that he got from other reporters; other reporters were saying this, and Mr. Libby did not know if it were true. And in fact, Mr. Libby testified that he told the reporters he did not even know if Mr. Wilson had a wife.

And, in fact, we now know that Mr. Libby discussed this information about Valerie Wilson at least four times prior to July 14th, 2003: on three occasions with Judith Miller of the New York Times and on one occasion with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine.

The first occasion in which Mr. Libby discussed it with Judith Miller was back in June 23rd of 2003, just days after an article appeared online in the New Republic which quoted some critical commentary from Mr. Wilson.

After that discussion with Judith Miller on June 23rd, 2003, Mr. Libby also discussed Valerie Wilson on July 8th of 2003.

During that discussion, Mr. Libby talked about Mr. Wilson in a conversation that was on background as a senior administration official. And when Mr. Libby talked about Wilson, he changed the attribution to a former Hill staffer.

During that discussion, which was to be attributed to a former Hill staffer, Mr. Libby also discussed Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, working at the CIA -- and then, finally, again, on July 12th.

In short -- and in those conversations, Mr. Libby never said, "This is something that other reporters are saying;" Mr. Libby never said, "This is something that I don't know if it's true;" Mr. Libby never said, "I don't even know if he had a wife."

At the end of the day what appears is that Mr. Libby's story that he was at the tail end of a chain of phone calls, passing on from one reporter what he heard from another, was not true.

It was false. He was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter. And then he lied about it afterwards, under oath and repeatedly.

Now, as I said before, this grand jury investigation has been conducted in secret. I believe it should have been conducted in secret, not only because it's required by those rules, but because the rules are wise. Those rules protect all of us.

We are now going from a grand jury investigation to an indictment, a public charge and a public trial. The rules will be different.

But I think what we see here today, when a vice president's chief of staff is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice, it does show the world that this is a country that takes its law seriously; that all citizens are bound by the law.

But what we need to also show the world is that we can also apply the same safeguards to all our citizens, including high officials. Much as they must be bound by the law, they must follow the same rules.

So I ask everyone involved in this process, anyone who participates in this trial, anyone who covers this trial, anyone sitting home watching these proceedings to follow this process with an American appreciation for our values and our dignity.

Let's let the process take place. Let's take a deep breath and let justice process the system."

Sorry, I did not just link this. I thought in the name of disclosure it would be best to put it all out there. What has been cut and pasted is the original statement by Fitzgerald.

This is all about Libby "lying" about when he knew of Plame's identity. That is it. Nothing more.

Again, if this were about an outing it would have been charged. It was not. Therefore, this is nothing more than about what Libby knew and when he knew.

You can attach all the conspiracy theories you want, but it is only about dates. It appears Libby lied about dates, but that is it. If it were more, Fitzgerald would have indicted more.

Spare us please the conspiracy theories of how we don't if there was an outing because Libby lied. Spare us, this indictment is about dates nothing more.

If it were about more, Fitzgerald could have indicted for the "outing" and obstruction of justice. But he did not!!

He only indicted Libby concerning dates. That's it.

So now tell Spidergoat what exactly do I not understand? Or is it because I do not march to your socialist agenda?

My Sources. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html)

Perjury hasn't been proven yet, I agree, but Fitzgerald said that due to what appears to be the obstruction and perjury, the underlying facts of the case (the treason part) could not be determined.

My speculation may be premature, in your opinion, but it is not silly. This is a very serious episode. In my opinion, worse than Watergate. There is ample evidence in the indictment to prove to my own satisfaction that Libby is guilty. Fuck being nice, Bush sure doesn't give a crap about being nice. Let those who have eyes see. Kerry was slandered, his wife was slandered, McCain was slandered, his wife was slandered, this is Rove's modus operandi. There is a pattern here. The Niger document, that Bush relied on for the 16 words, was a forgery, and Bush knew it, because Wilson reported it. Plame's identity was leaked. These are facts. From this I deduce that Plame's identity was leaked as retribution. This is just a deduction but it's consistent with the pattern, therefore it's not just idle speculation, it's a reasonable assumption.

Does Bush make war for his own perverted reasons? Because he seems to make up a new reason every month.

Edit,
today in a closed senate session:
"The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions," [Harry] Reid said...

All this is lovely and wonderful except:

"QUESTION: A lot of Americans, people who are opposed to the war, critics of the administration, have looked to your investigation with hope in some ways and might see this indictment as a vindication of their argument that the administration took the country to war on false premises.

Does this indictment do that?

FITZGERALD: This indictment is not about the war. This indictment's not about the propriety of the war. And people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel.

This is simply an indictment that says, in a national security investigation about the compromise of a CIA officer's identity that may have taken place in the context of a very heated debate over the war, whether some person -- a person, Mr. Libby -- lied or not.

The indictment will not seek to prove that the war was justified or unjustified. This is stripped of that debate, and this is focused on a narrow transaction.

And I think anyone's who's concerned about the war and has feelings for or against shouldn't look to this criminal process for any answers or resolution of that."

My Sources. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html)

Can it be anymore obvious that this indictment is not what you were hoping for?

I applaud Filtzgerald's impartiality, but where he may not draw conclusions from Libby's actions, I can. I noticed you "forgot" to include the part where Fitzgerald's statement counters your notion that "this indictment is about dates nothing more." He went into a whole analogy with baseball...

...And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view.

As you sit here now, if you're asking me what his motives were, I can't tell you; we haven't charged it.

So what you were saying is the harm in an obstruction investigation is it prevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make...

...This is a very serious matter and compromising national security information is a very serious matter. But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important. We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime.

This is all about Libby "lying" about when he knew of Plame's identity. That is it. Nothing more.
Well, no, it isn't. It's about Libby trying to make it seem like Plame was outed by reporters. You might want to check out a better source for information than Fitzgerald's press conference, as good as it was (the actual indictment (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf)).

Libby testified that: [Tim] "Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA", and "LIBBY was surprised to hear that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA".


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;

So, Libby was acting like Plame's identity was a surprise, and that he heard about it from Tim Russert, when actually Libby knew all about it. This isn't just a confusion about dates, or some oversight, this is deliberately misleading. Could it be more obvious that Republicans are spinning this story like a dreidel?

This isn't just a confusion about dates, or some oversight, this is deliberately misleading.

Do you know, and can accurately explained, EXACTLY what you said and did and with whom on a specific date over two years ago? How can you say that it's "deliberately misleading" when it could be just simple memory loss (from idle coversations over two years ago!)?? How can you or anyone be so sure as to continue to make those allegations ...and write them out, too?

And you didn't answer my question, Spider .......How would YOU like to be taken to court with similar flimsy evidence as that?

Our system of justice is, thankfully, much better than YOUR idea of justice. If your ideas were in place, ...??

Baron Max

Well, we'll see, won't we? Remember, this isn't what Libby had for breakfast, this is his job. If I was being taken to court with the same evidence, I would be very worried for my own ass.

Hey, Spider, do you remember, specifically, what you said on 23 July 2003 at 10am? And be precise! Tell us who you talked to, what you talked about, and used the exact, precise words that you used then. And, "I can't remember." is not an excuse ...if you can't remember, ye're going to jail for purposely, intentionally misleading or lying to the sciforums! ...and the owners and moderators of the sciforums will have to serve time in jail with you, too!!

Baron Max

I can remember, I was at a Star Trek convention, George Takei and I were discussing his sexuality, which I did not reveal to anyone.

What were your exact words? And what were Takei's exact words?

And if you don't get it exactly right, we're gonna' send you to jail ....as well as Takei and all of the members of the Star Trek cast! ...because they, too, should have known better than to allow Takei to reveal such "damaging" information. You'll all hang by the neck until dead.

Oh, and we'll dig up Gene Rodenberry and hang his ass, too!

Baron Max

Well, no, it isn't. It's about Libby trying to make it seem like Plame was outed by reporters. You might want to check out a better source for information than Fitzgerald's press conference, as good as it was (the actual indictment (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf)).

I did read the indictment and again it was about what Libby said and when he said it. Nothing more.

Dude, if it were about outing Plame. That would have been the very first indictment. It would have preceded the obstruction, and perjury charges. Noone is even arguing that she was not outed, or it would have been part of the indictment. It is not rocket science, dude.

do you remember, specifically, what you said on 23 July 2003 at 10am?
How about looking at it in context, now?
If I was the Chief of Staff for the Vice President, (formerly Assistant to the President AND Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs) and was speaking to a reporter, on condition of anonymity, about matters closely (or directly) related to National Security, that could very well come back to my boss and the Administration, during a time of war that was hotly debated politically (and don't forget, he does not deny ANY of the above) you had better be damned sure I would know exactly where I was, at what time, who I was talking to and what precicely was said AND I would keep thorough notes (if not record the conversation).

How about looking at it in context, now?
If I was the Chief of Staff for the Vice President, ....

Well, last time I checked, One_Raven was NOT the Chief of Staff for the vic-president. So what you've said has no bearing on the case at all.

Baron Max

No I am not, neither is spidergoat so your absurd out of context question has no bearing on the reality of this situation at all.

I'm trying to point out that Libby might have told what he remembered, which might NOT have been accurate due to a poor memory (three years is a long time!). But that's also pointing out how difficult it's going to be to PROVE that he "lied" with the INTENTION to mislead ....rather than just forgot. The prosecution has a damned difficult case to prove!! They have to prove INTENT!

Baron Max

No I am not, neither is spidergoat so your absurd out of context question has no bearing on the reality of this situation at all.

Yer Max, nice, try and dig yourself outa that one!

I did read the indictment and again it was about what Libby said and when he said it. Nothing more.

Dude, if it were about outing Plame. That would have been the very first indictment. It would have preceded the obstruction, and perjury charges. Noone is even arguing that she was not outed, or it would have been part of the indictment. It is not rocket science, dude.
This indictment is about what Libby said, yes. Nothing more, yes. But, Fitzgerald said in his press conference, that investigating the outing of Plame through the cloud of lies was like a baseball umpire trying to make a call with sand getting thrown in his face, therefore, the indictment for obstruction etc., comes first. The indictment is not a conclusion of the investigation.

This indictment is about what Libby said, yes. Nothing more, yes.

That's it. Nothing more. Again it is not rocket science. I do not care about the baseball analogy, which was not exactly clear anyway. He made two analogies. One was long and concluded with get over it. The other was a fragment. No one knows exactly what he was trying to say.

But at some point, you have to come to the realization that your argument is hinging on a fragment of a baseball analogy.

At the very start of the press conference, Fitzgerald stated that Plame's identity was given out. That is it. He never expanded on it. Thus, if he were going to indict on the outing he would have. But clearly, he did not think it was appropriate. Again, it is all about what Libby said and when he said it. Any other argument is speculative at this point. Thusly, I am done commenting on it.

I know what he was saying. It's not rocket surgery. He could not get to the original cause of the investigation due to obstruction, so he dealt with that.

He was legally obligated not to talk about anything other than the narrow scope of the indictment, which erroneously gave supporters of this administration the idea that there will be no future indictments for the underlying cause of the investigation, which is serious and ongoing.