In an indictment are facts, that can't be proven untrue, assumed

[libertypirate]

true?

The reason I ask is this looks a little too convenient.

on or about June 11 or 12, 2003, Libby was orally advised by the Undersecretary of State that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA and that State Department personnel were saying that Wilson’s wife was involved in the organization of his trip;

on or about June 11, 2003, Libby was informed by a senior officer of the CIA that Wilson’s wife was employed by the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip;

prior to June 12, 2003, Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus contacted the Office of the Vice President about a story he was writing about Wilson’s trip. Libby participated in discussions in the Vice President’s office concerning how to respond to Pincus;

on or about June 12, 2003, Libby was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA in the Counterproliferation Division. Libby understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA;

[Igel]

1. I would think that this reflects testimony and evidence

presented to the grand jury as part of Fitzgerald's case. The jury certainly believed that these were true facts, or at least true enough in the aggregate.

One would think that these allegations are challengeable in the trial, if Libby and attorney decide to pursue that route. After all, Libby could, in principle, argue that he was speaking the truth and all the evidence pointing to his guilt is miscontrued or wrong; he could then move to dismiss the charges. I think he'd fail at that defense, and it would be a royal pain.

I would expect that the evidence, if not secret, would be included in the evidence submitted at the trial, or the claims will be stipulated to as factual by Libby after viewing the evidence in order to keep all the evidence unclassified.