[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.

[1L]

Here's the example from the text:

"a. When LIBBY spoke with Tim Russert of NBC News, on or about July 10, 2003:

i. Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, and told LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and

ii. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was surprised to hear that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA;"

The question is: did Libby tell the DOJ that he was surprised to hear this info, or was he telling the DOJ that he told Russert he was surprised to hear the info? I haven't seen anything that shows the prosecutor understands that Libby was intentionally lying to reporters.

I don't know why you think my hypothetical isn't relevent. It is.