[1L]

>> Whether he lied to reporters, or told the truth to reporters is in itself, irrelvant.<<

I understand that, but the prosecutor doesn't seem to. No, I don't think Fitz is stupid enough to say, "Libby lied to Cooper, so let's indict him." What the problem is, as stated, is that Fitz doesn't understand what Libby was saying -- i.e. that he was in effect lying to reporters, and one of the statements Libby made to investigators was untruthful but it was meant to be untruthful -- to demonstrate to the investigators that he was, in fact, lying to reporters. Yet, the investigators took the statement at face value.

In other words, if I told my wife I was at a lodge meeting last night and that wasn't true, but told investigators, "I was at a lodge meeting" in reponse to the question of, "what did you tell your wife," these investigators would indict me for lying when I wasn't lying to THEM. I was telling them how I was lying to my wife.

Based upon your statement, I would like you to demonstrate how this isn't true (if you believe it isn't) rather than state "he isn't being charged with lying to reporters" in a conclusory fashion.

I don't believe for a second Libby is stupid enough to commit perjury.

[Cboldt]

In other words, if I told my wife I was at a lodge meeting last night and that wasn't true, but told investigators, "I was at a lodge meeting" in reponse to the question of, "what did you tell your wife," these investigators would indict me for lying when I wasn't lying to THEM. I was telling them how I was lying to my wife.

Based upon your statement, I would like you to demonstrate how this isn't true (if you believe it isn't) rather than state "he isn't being charged with lying to reporters" in a conclusory fashion.

Without getting into the truth of the allegations in the indictment, it (the indictment) does not ring of the hypothetical story you paint regarding your hypothetical married life.

If you can't see the difference on reading the indictment, then you have reading comprehension issues.