If stealing and destroying secret documents, stuffing them into your pants and then lying about it isn't a crime worthy of jail time, why is having a different recollection of events than Tim Russert?
If the charges swirling around Scooter Libby — that he deceived those investigating a crime for which he was not charged — seem familiar, they should. Not long ago Martha Stewart was indicted and convicted, not of insider trading in a suspiciously timed stock sale, but of deceiving investigators into a crime for which she was not charged.
In both cases, is justice being served? Or are the prosecutors just trying to justify the time and money spent failing to prove that those charged committed the alleged crime?
I heard Howard Dean on FoxNews opining that this, "lying and perjury and obstruction of justice is a very serious crime and must be taken seriously." He alluded to Clinton's conviction for lying and perjury. He seemed to think the cases were similar.
They are not. Clinton's crime was lying and perjury. He admitted his guilt, was convicted, and lost his law license--among other things.
The crime that Fitzgerald was investigating in the recent case was presumably "outing" a secret agent. No such crime was committed (no matter what the lefties claim). Yet, Libby was indicted for lying to the Grand Jury but not indicted for outing Plame. AND--although he has been tried and convicted by the likes of Howard Dean and the gormless Dems, Libby has not been convicted; and in fact, today plead not guilty. To this day, we have heard only one side of the allegations; and that is the prosecuting attorney's side.
Last time I looked, this was still the U.S.--where a person is innocent until proven guilty.