A few initial thoughts upon reading the indictment of "Scooter" Libby:

First, it's important to recognize that these indictments are for actions relating to the investigation, none of them address any underlying crime. The left and the MSM will continue to spin this as being about "outing Valerie Plame to discredit Joe Wilson", but no one has been charged with anything like that. Further, these charges have nothing to do with "misleading us into war." These indictments are for lying about what Libby said to Russert, Cooper, and Miller. They have nothing to do with Iraq, per se. The left will need to be confronted whenever they try to pull that spin.

All the background about the whole Wilson-Plame-Scooter-Rove, etc. affair seems somewhat out of place, given that none of the actual charges directly relate to that background.

On page 3 of the indictment, the background information given seems to accept at face value the bogus Joe Wilson claim that he "debunked the forged Niger documents" that in fact Joe Wilson did not ever see:

On May 6, 2003, the New York Times published a column by Nicholas Kristof which disputed the accuracy of the "sixteen words" in the State of the Union address. ... According to the column, the ambassador reported back to the CIA and State Department in early 2002 that the allegations were unequivocally wrong and based on forged documents.

But in fact the forged documents didn't come out until much later, in October 2002, and Joe Wilson never saw them, as he was later forced to admit. The indictment does include the caveat "According to the column...", but nonetheless it's interesting that this falsehood is now part of the official record.

In a similar vein, the indictment states:

On June 12, 2003, the Washington Post published an article by reporter Walter Pincus
about Wilson’s trip to Niger, which described Wilson as a retired ambassador but not by name, and
reported that the CIA had sent him to Niger after an aide to the Vice President raised questions about
purported Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium. Pincus’s article questioned the accuracy of the “sixteen
words,” and stated that the retired ambassador had reported to the CIA that the uranium purchase
story was false.

[p.3]

But there was no "uranium purchase story". Remember, the president SOU speech said "sought" not "bought", a critical distinction.

Incidentally, will Joe Wilson be indicted for leaking classified information? Surely his trip to Niger was classified, wasn't it?

According to the indictment:

On or about June 11 or 12, 2003, the Under Secretary of State orally advised LIBBY
in the White House that, in sum and substance, Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and that State
Department personnel were saying that Wilson’s wife was involved in the planning of his trip.

[p.4]

If corroborated, this seems to establish that Libby knew in June 2003 that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. If he clearly testified to the FBI and/or the grand jury that he couldn't recall that fact, that does not seem plausible. This does not seem to be a fact easily forgotten.

However, from the excerpts of Libby's testimony in the indictment, it's unclear whether he was lying to the FBI and the grand jury, or to Tim Russert, Matt Cooper, and Judith Miller (the latter would not be a crime):

During these interviews, LIBBY stated to FBI Special Agents that:
a. During a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC News on July 10 or 11,
2003, Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY was aware that Wilson’s wife worked
for the CIA. LIBBY responded to Russert that he did not know that, and
Russert replied that all the reporters knew it. LIBBY was surprised by this
statement because, while speaking with Russert, LIBBY did not recall that
he previously had learned about Wilson’s wife’s employment from the Vice
President.

b. During a conversation with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on or about
July 12, 2003, LIBBY told Cooper that reporters were telling the
administration that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, but that LIBBY did
not know if this was true; and

c. LIBBY did not discuss Wilson’s wife with New York Times reporter Judith
Miller during a meeting with Miller on or about July 8, 2003.

[p.9]
...

32. It was part of the corrupt endeavor that during his grand jury testimony, defendant
LIBBY made the following materially false and intentionally misleading statements and
representations, in substance, under oath:
a. When LIBBY spoke with Tim Russert of NBC News, on or about July 10,
2003:
i. Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson’s wife worked for
the CIA, and told LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and
ii. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was surprised to hear that
Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA;
12
b. LIBBY advised Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on or about July 12, 2003,
that he had heard that other reporters were saying that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, and further
advised him that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true; and
c. LIBBY advised Judith Miller of the New York Times on or about July 12,
2003 that he had heard that other reporters were saying that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA but
LIBBY did not know whether that assertion was true.
[pp.11-12]
....

. . . . And then he said, you know, did you know that this – excuse me, did you know
that Ambassador Wilson's wife works at the CIA? And I was a little taken aback by
that. I remember being taken aback by it. And I said – he may have said a little more
but that was – he said that. And I said, no, I don't know that. And I said, no, I don't
know that intentionally because I didn't want him to take anything I was saying as in
any way confirming what he said, because at that point in time I did not recall that
I had ever known, and I thought this is something that he was telling me that I was
first learning. And so I said, no, I don't know that because I want to be very careful
not to confirm it for him, so that he didn't take my statement as confirmation for him.
Now, I had said earlier in the conversation, which I omitted to tell you, that
this – you know, as always, Tim, our discussion is off-the-record if that's okay with
you, and he said, that's fine.
So then he said – I said – he said, sorry – he, Mr. Russert said to me, did you
know that Ambassador Wilson's wife, or his wife, works at the CIA? And I said, no,
I don't know that. And then he said, yeah – yes, all the reporters know it. And I said,
again, I don't know that. I just wanted to be clear that I wasn't confirming anything
for him on this. And you know, I was struck by what he was saying in that he
thought it was an important fact, but I didn't ask him anymore about it because I
19
didn't want to be digging in on him, and he then moved on and finished the
conversation, something like that.
[pp.18-19]
....

In short, the allegations against Libby look kind of thin, but it's not implausible to suggest he made knowingly false statements. It looks at first glance like the prosecutor is being tough, but not outrageously irresponsible in bringing these indictments. We had hoped there would either be indictments based on clear and compelling evidence of serious wrongdoing, or no indictments. It looks like the prosecutor landed somewhere in the middle today.

Excerpts via The Washington Post.

Much more from Michelle Malkin, Orin Kerr, Kevin Aylward, and Ed Morrissey.

Update: Patterico catches the L.A. Times being sloppy with the difference between "sought" and "bought".