[CharlesWayneCT]

I thought that one aspect of a purjury charge was that the lie had to be material to the investigation.

If there is evidence that no crime existed, wouldn't that at least raise a legitimate inquiry of fact about whether the perjury was material?

Further, wouldn't proof that no law had been violated raise a legitimate jury issue about whether Libby had a reason to purposely mislead investigators, another hurdle of perjury and the false statements charge?

In other words, even though he was not charged with violating a statute, his statements that he didn't purposely lie and had no reason to do so would be bolstered if there was proof that there was no violation of law, and therefore no reason to lie.

[dblshot]

Fitz:Mr Libby Lied.
Libby's lawyer:About what?
Fitz:About who said Valeria Flame was a covert agent first.
Libby's lawyer: Was she a covert agent?
Fitz: I don't know it's not germane.
Libby's lawyer:If it's not germane what did Mr. Libby lie about that is germane to this case?
Fitz: About who said she was a covert agent first.
Libby's lawyer: Was she?
Fitz:It's not germane.
Libby's lawyer: But Mr Libby lied about something not germane to this case?
Fitz:Yes.
Libby's lawyer: Did Mr. Libby lie about something germane to this case?
Fitz: That's what I'm saying.
Libby's lawyer: Saying what that is germane?
Fitz: That's right, germane.
Libby's lawyer: To this case.
Fitz: Yes.
Libby's lawyer: What.
Fitz: No, What's on second.

[Steve_Seattle]

It is really quite phenomenal that - in two years - in a case narrowly focused on whether leaking a specific piece of information was illegal - Fitz has still not made a thorough inquiry into whether releasing that information was in fact illegal. This is starting to look like prosecutorial incompetence. The following statement is particularly damning: "We have neither sought, much less obtained, 'all documents, regardless of when created, relating to whether Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, or any aspect of that status, was classified at any time between May 6, 2003 and July 14, 2003." Wasn't that the point of the whole investigation, the basic starting point?

[Nevermore]

Your absolutely correct. The wording of Fitz's indictment against Libby was loaded with implications that Libby did something illegal - without stating the crimes. He's hiding behind the fig leaf of those implications as justification that the testimony was material.

[InterceptPoint]

I thought that one aspect of a purjury charge was that the lie had to be material to the investigation

That sound very logical. If true, Libby will walk.