I was wondering if anyone could help me with this, because it seems like semantics (and I do realize that semantics is nine tenths of the law...or something like that. <G>)
People are saying that he wasn't indicted for outing Plame, but, from reading the indictment, he WAS indicted for lying when he said that he DIDN'T.
So, if you're indicted for lying when you say you didn't out someone, that means that, in truth, you did. (Shades of I, Mudd, anyone?)
it doesn't work quite like that, it's more literal - it's about exactly what he said, and that Fitz decides there is enough evidence to prove that exactly what he said, was knowingly false.
the exact statements he said, to investigators and to the grand jury, were not about outting someone confidential, but rather from whom he got it and precisely when - the indictment alleges that when he stated that he got her name 'from reporters' and what date that was, and that at that date he didn't know Wilson had a wife or who she was, and that he was the end of a train of gossip, was false: that he did in fact know before his statement date that Wilson had a wife, her name, and what she was, and that he did not get it from reporters but in fact had heard it before that date from others, insiders, officials. Fitz says he was the start of the train, not the end like some innocent. (who shouldn't have named or gossiped anyway even if he was at the end, my take)
This indictment is not about divulging her name or capacity- it's about allegedly being caught in lies to the grand jury, obstruction of justice.
Edited by offworlder, 28 October 2005 - 05:34 PM.