ubertuber

It seems like this is a variation of the "no underlying crime" theme. I see these arguments put forth over and over, yet they never makes sense to me. Libby wasn't convicted of the things you listed. He was convicted of something else - obstructing justice.

To follow your argument to its conclusion, recreational perjury and obstruction is fine. The only perjury that matters is perjury in cases where a guilty verdict is found in the charges that began the investigation. Of course, this doesn't make sense, in that there is no verdict at the time the perjury or obstruction is committed. To claim that it works itself out to nill is to say that the witness/party in question has the right and authority to decide for his or herself whether the investigation is justified or will be fruitful. That's obviously ridiculous.

The integrity of the entire criminal justice system relies on being able to conduct investigations. You can't allow obstruction or perjury in any circumstance, whether it is material in retrospect or not. That's the thing that got Clinton nailed, and truth be told he deserved more than he got, even if the thing that started it all was a blowjob or sexual harassment. And just because we screwed that one up (in terms of creating accountability) doesn't mean that we have to screw this one up as well.

That doesn't even begin to consider the question of what the outcome of Fitzgerald's investigation would have been without Libby's obstruction, to say nothing of the more informal resistance that was nearly constant.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam