I don’t think the motive thing is necessarily in Libby’s favor, I am just suggesting that there is a reasonable explanation which I think is plausable. What is the counter for Libby saying the wife was unimportant; the crucial issue was proving that Wilson was not credible? He was giddy with Ari about learning that it was the CIA that sent Wilson, and, oh yeh, his wife works there. It just seems to let the air out.

And, no, I don’t think Fitz will indict under IIPA, at least Libby, which Tom also nails. And I don’t think Libby was worried about prosecution since I recall reading that he had received specific training in compliance issues, so I think he probably knew he was clear on that one befor he went to testify. But, embarrassment as a reason to lie to a Grand Jury? Seems a stretch. But, granted, sometimes people can do stupid things in a panic… but that does not a conspiracy make.

The rogue CIA section junket scenario ties back to my sidebar which might end up having longer legs than the Libby story. Who’s been leaking from the CIA and won’t that disclosure be a lot more embarassing if there really was a cabalistic conspiracy out to undermine Bush? Not using established whistle-blower channels does matter, both legally and politically, as it speaks to motive.

Pretty provocative artcle on Libby’s defense at:
http://www.observer.com/200605…..story2.asp
to fill in a few pieces of the story (generally sympathetic with above subject article).

S.D.: Thanks for your clarity and civility. Respect is the biggest thing missing in the current political debate, but it is also the one thing I can have the most direct impact upon. Best wishes.

As to this:

Now, the curious thing is that AFAIR, Fitz does not anywhere in his discovery pleadings explain motive to lie in these terms. Instead, he talks about potential political embarrassment (we don’t need Clinton’s example to know that some folks lie to avoid embarrassment) and the potential threat to one’s livelihood due to Bush’s (in my view transparently phony) promise to fire any leakers. One has to wonder why Fitz has studiously avoided invoking what I think is the more obvious theory of motive.

I think Fitzgerald is nowhere in terms of an IIPA charge, with Libby anyway – from this Fitzgerald affidavit that was part of the Tatel / Miller argument (p. 28):

To date, we have no direct evidence that Libby knew or believed that Wilson’s wife was engaged in covert work.

And no better evidence has been presented since – in his recent filings, Fitzgerald managed to tell us that Libby had been warned of possible harm done by Plame’s exposure *after* the Novak colimn came out, which won’t work to establish the requisite knowledge under IIPA or the Espionage Act.

And FWIW, grand jury secrecy rules mean that Libby’s testimony would not have been “embarrassing” unless it also led to an indictment, or was leaked illegaly (which happens) – there is no statutory mechanism for Fitzgerald to issue some kind of a final report (unlike the old special prosecutors, who could do that under the now-lapsed law). Libby may have been worried about a leak of his testimony, but why not be equally worried about Cooper or Miller leaking something – they surely had a sense of his role in the story.

Well – as noted, the WSJ is criticizing Fitzgerald for delivering an indictment without a motive; Ms. Hardin-Smith’s response can be distilled to, “Libby was indicted, so there”. Not exactly responsive.

Maybe a jury will buy that; or maybe Fitzgerald is hiding something better (keep hope alive!).

===Moderator: you expect Jane and RH to be in five places at once? They’ve got a lot on their plate(s) with high profile yKos kudos===

I very much appreciate your thoughtful analysis and criticism. My bad on the OOJ charge. Thanks for the correction. But, my question still stands: How can Libby be convicted of perjury and OOJ if Libby never thought there was a crime and therefore logically could not have been trying to cover up anything?

If Fitz has more, like actual evidence of a cover-up conspiracy, then he better indict, at some point. I can see the strategy of hoping to convict Libby and having him turn, but this can only work if convicted, and if Libby has something to offer. If Libby is not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (see question above – ‘no reason to lie’), then Fitz will be eating an egg facial. Will he wrap up and go home or we he slog on seeking his own vengence? If all Fitz gets is a convicted Libby, and never indicts on the actual leak it will prove that Libby has a bad memory, yet without any conspiracy Fitzmas will be a flop again.

Side-bar question: are those outraged by Libby and the “leak” ready to applaud equally aggressive investigations against leakers in the CIA, NSA, etc. who may share your political leanings. Those charges would be more easily provable in showing breaking of the law by releasing classified materials to the press instead of using proper whistle-blower channels. Be careful what you wish for…

Also, in case you aren’t following this too closely, the WSJ is apparently attempting the same kind of defense that Libby has failed to get Judge Walton to buy into. Libby wants to make this case about Wilson’s truthfulness, but it isn’t Wilson who has been charged with lying. Many of us suspect that with Libby’s team having been shot down in their attempt to change the framework of his case, the WSJ – and I ssupect other sympathetic media outlets – has picked up the ball on Libby’s behalf.

You don’t know that Fitz isn’t going to have additional indictments against Libby and others. The initial charge is just for leverage.