LOL. The chief of staff to the vice president of the united states is in trouble with the law for lying about activities related to a coverup of manipulating evidence to go to war and what you think is important is that Russert may have lied about not knowing an aspect of grand jury law. Very unbiased blogging, good work.

Thanks Jewish Atheist.

First of all, your theory of the case is all wrong.

Libby is charged with committing perjury about the Administration's pushback on the media's attempt to lynch the Bush Admin based on a bunch of lies - which the Senate pointed out in strong language were lies - that Joe Wilson pushed out into the public through his media connections, most notably Nicholas Kristof. Everything in those articles were wrong.

Libbye is not charged with taking part in "a coverup of manipulating evidence to go to war". If you had read the transcript, you would know that the jury knows nothing about that, because the only thing that matters is this alleged perjury about who leaked Joe Wilson's wife identity and obstruction into that matter. But no one would have cared had not Wilson gone out into the public and started lying. And had not the MSM, with their usual fairhandedness, taken everything he said as God's own truth.

And do you think for a minute that it does not matter that Russert - the Fed's chief to impeach the veracity of Libby - is clearly and obviously lying on the stand.

Oh that's right, you didn't mind when Clinton perjured himself publicly, either.

You guys would be screaming bloody murder if an evil Republican - used to impeach the reputation of one of your leftist saints - was lying this forthrightly on the stand.

He is not charged with taking part in "a coverup of manipulating evidence to go to war".

I never said he was. I wrote, "The chief of staff to the vice president of the united states is in trouble with the law for lying about activities related to a coverup of manipulating evidence to go to war."

Just as Clinton was in trouble for lying about oral s*x. It was wrong when Clinton did it and it's wrong if Libby did it. Clinton, though, was lying about something irrelevant to his role as president, while Libby is charged with lying about something central to the American peoples' interest.

Regarding Russert, I have know way of knowing if the clearly biased and amateurish ("ridiculous claim," "This was a dumb answer...") Maine Web Report, which I've never heard of, is reliably relaying his words. So far, no real news organizations that I've seen are reporting the matter.

So far, no real news organizations that I've seen are reporting the matter.

And considering Russert's position within the media world, do you think that is not an impeachment of them altogether. But then, if the news media says it is not news, they still believe it isn't news. And this speaks directly to their hypocrisy - so they prefer to keep on seeing the story through their favorite lenses - that Russert's duplicitous filings is not a reflection on the hypocrisy of news media.

And actually, I beg to differ. I think the President of the United States lying under oath is very important to the interest of the American people. That is an issue at the heart of the American interest.

And I still don't agree with you about what this case is about.

Joe Wilson was the one who, with the overt complicity of friendly media, introduced the narrative that the Administration had manipulated evidence to go to war. And Joe Wilson was lying about what was in his own report to the CIA. The Administration was attempting to provide evidence to show that this charge was not true - which they are allowed to do.

But the media, in their self-righteous, high-handedness, wanted so badly to believe Wilson's story that they concocted this ridiulous situation that required a special prosecutor. And in the end, have ended up hurting themselves and showing off their shoddy research and their private hypocrisies far more than anything else.