How would that excuse Libby's alleged lying to investigators? The media tried to get out of testifying at all, on the same grounds -- "she's already OUTED!" -- but it didn't get them out of testifying, truthfully one would expect.
the media never claimed that at all. they claimed they had a right to protect a source to deny testimony, none of the media people involved in this case ever admitted she was already outed - in fact, they all claimed they didn't know who she was before talking with Rove and Libby. you believe this was truthful? on what basis? you are asking us to believe that Mandy Grunwald's husband, Miller who has covered WMD and intel issues amongst the DC press corp for years, and Andrea Mitchell's boss Tim Russert - that none of them knew who Wilson's wife was before talking to Rove and Libby. you buying that?
you are correct about Libby's problem - but this does show that the GJ was never about determining whether the outing was a crime and who might have done it - it was always about setting a perjury trap for the administration people.
It wouldn't excuse Libby's alleged lying...if he did lie, then it's wrong, plain and simple...However, if his "lie" is based on the reporter's saying they didn't know about plame until they heard it from Libby, and it is discoverd that this info was common knowledge (as it most certanly seems to have been), then there are more folks that should be on the hot seat than just Libby (and they're all in the dnc/msm).
This whole thing stinks to high heaven of a CIA/DNC/MSM generated plot to try and get the rats back in power by taking down this Administration by any means possible. [\tin foil hat]
How, I think anyway, it would do that, it so illustrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that the whole premise of the invesitgation was flawed, and that valerie wilson was known to be a CIA employee and it was common knowledge, and that there is no justification to charge libby with lying or misleading a Grand Jury when it can't be proven he was lying or was hiding anything, and it would additionally be said that "you can't obstruce a crime that you didn't commit and that didn't happen". The investigatin is flawed in its very existence. All this would be VERY difficult for a JURY to convict on. If there's just one person like me on that jury, Libby is a free man. Because just ONE person like me, will hear all this, then listen to Valalley, and say "Screw this. This is a hose job and it's all full of crap, NOT GUILTY, and if the other 11 in the jury disagree with me, they can BIT ME! NOT GUILTY!" That's how I think anyway. 8)
Well, when Libby claimed some other reporters had already told him, they might have, maybe even years ago!