OK, so I'm a bit curious why I really haven't heard much pertaining to this, but lets assume that Libby is guilty of what he was indicted for. Now the DA made it fairly clear that Libby wasn't indicted for any leak-laws because as he put it, he couldn't prove if they were intentional or if it was unintentional (insert are you that stupid and what the hell were you thinking).
If he did unknowingly out the CIA operative then why go to such means to lie? A mistake is a mistake. Sure that won't help him in the fact that he made an undercover CIA operative's identity public, but he surely wouldn't be facing all the chargers that he was indicted for if he had just told the truth.
If found guilty of even one of the charges that means one of two things to me. Either Libby tried covering for himself because he had personal motives as to why the information was leaked and that is the end of that, which would be unfortunate as then he should have been charged for leaking the information (my understanding though is that the way the laws are currently worded, they are damn hard to indict anyone). The other is that Libby was lying to protect someone else, and in my experience most people look out for themselves as No. 1, so if it were the case I'm inclined to think that he would be lying to protect someone a little higher on the food chain.
Does this reasoning sound sane, or do I have a severe case of Changleen conspiracy-itus?
If he did unknowingly out the CIA operative then why go to such means to lie? A mistake is a mistake. Sure that won't help him in the fact that he made an undercover CIA operative's identity public, but he surely wouldn't be facing all the chargers that he was indicted for if he had just told the truth.
If found guilty of even one of the charges that means one of two things to me. Either Libby tried covering for himself because he had personal motives as to why the information was leaked and that is the end of that, which would be unfortunate as then he should have been charged for leaking the information (my understanding though is that the way the laws are currently worded, they are damn hard to indict anyone). The other is that Libby was lying to protect someone else, and in my experience most people look out for themselves as No. 1, so if it were the case I'm inclined to think that he would be lying to protect someone a little higher on the food chain.
Does this reasoning sound sane, or do I have a severe case of Changleen conspiracy-itus?
