Absurdity
Byron York, writing in The Hill, discusses an issue that I have raised before: is it proper to charge someone with lying about a crime when no underlying crime has been shown to have been committed?
Libby’s lawyers had asked Fitzgerald to produce evidence that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert agent at the CIA. They had also asked for an assessment of the damage, if any, caused by the exposure of her identity.
In papers filed with the court, Fitzgerald refused both requests. Now, in the courtroom, Judge Walton wanted to hear Fitzgerald’s reasons.
“Does the government intend to introduce any evidence that would relate to either damage or potential damage that the alleged revelations by Mr. Libby caused, or do you intend to introduce any evidence related to Ms. Wilson’s status and whether it was classified or she was in a covert status or anything of that nature?” Walton asked.
“We don’t intend to offer any proof of actual damage,” Fitzgerald said. “We’re not going to get into whether that would occur or not. It’s not part of the perjury statute.”
Now this is something that should be worrisome to everyone. If the government cannot get an indictment on a crime – in a grand jury where it is generally accepted that a prosecutor can get a ham sandwich indicted – should they then be charging someone with perjury? Even though the crime that allegedly causes the perjury has not been shown to exist? I think this is a terrible road to go down.
I was dead set against the conviction of Martha Stewart for this same reason. (I was not blogging then, though). Left or right, you should be worried about this kind of prosecution. It is insidiously dangerous. It is prosecutorial abuse and it could happen to anyone.
Think about that.
UPDATE: California Conservative has much the same take on this.
By Robert, May 11, 2006 @ 12:12 pm
And you could get impeached for it.
By Espe, May 11, 2006 @ 4:21 pm
Clinton was , but everybody suddenly changed their minds………
By Donna, May 11, 2006 @ 9:11 pm
Okay, if I can obstruct an investigation by lying under oath to the investigators, I should not be punished unless the investigators can prove the original charges which my lying thwarted. Hmmmm.
By Gaius, May 11, 2006 @ 9:25 pm
Wrong. A prosecuter can nail an indictment on almost anything. The standard is very, very, very low before a grand jury. The problem comes at trial if you have a worthless indictment.
This is bad for everyone. Think about it in a non-political context.