Jophiel wrote:
My point was simply that, unless Fitzgerald has cause to believe that Rove, Libby et al lied, obstructed, etc then they have nothing to worry about. Which is why we see the beginnings of a "Those guys always charge someone with something" smear campaign. The administration can't afford to have people brought up on charges that amount to lying about the investigation because the only reason they'd be lying is if they had stuff to hide.
Except that you and I both know that historically, this isn't really very true. It *should* be, but the fact is that public perception of answers given under oath have a great deal of weight, and those answering "tricky" questions are well aware of that.
Look at the huge uproar simply over the way Rove answered one question. He said that he "never told any reporter Valerie Plame's name", and it was immediately speculated in the media that this was a dodge since he could have referred to her as "Wilson's wife" instead.
The problem in this case is that in all likelyhood several members of the White House staff *did* discuss Valerie Plames CIA employment with reporters. But one of the difficult points with this issue is that the general public is not really aware that this is only illegal if they also knew that she was a NOC, and the vagarities between those two issues (one legal, one not) can make answering questions very very tricky. Heck. Almost every time this issue has come up, I've had to repeat several times that it's not a crime to say she works for the CIA unless the person saying it knows she's a NOC. And I certainly think that the average "clue" level on this board is generally a step or two higher then the general publics...
So when someone like Rove is asked a question like: "Did you reveal Valerie Plame's identity to a reporter?", how exactly should he answer it? Which "identity" is the question referring too? If he talked about her at all (even if he never mentioned her employment), is he required to answer "yes"? What if he did mention that she worked at the CIA? Was he revealing the same facts that were supposed to be secret? Is it even a fair question? Should he instead interpret the question to mean "Did you reveal her status as a NOC to a reporter?". In any case, if he answers yes, the public will interpret that as a admission of guilt, no matter what aspect of the question he was answering yes to.
But if he answers no, there's a chance that the prosecutor could show that the answer is literally untrue, and therefor perjury.
So yeah. Sidestepping the question isn't a bad choice. I've not followed the ivestigation heavily, but judging just on the questions asked of Rove, and the reactions in the media to those questions, there certainly were a number of those "potentially double meaning" questions that are the hallmark of this sort of investigation (designed to either present false guilt, or be usable to show perjury later).