http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/03/07/placing_libby_above_the_law.php<snip>
Do the conservatives who belittle the case believe Libby should have gotten a pass once Fitzgerald decided not to prosecute anyone for leaking? That obstruction of justice and perjury charges should not be filed in criminal cases that don't result in other indictments? To do so would countenance lying under oath. It would also say to possible targets of criminal investigations: Go ahead and lie and see if you can stymie the investigation. If your lies prevent a prosecutor from gathering evidence needed for an indictment, you win.
Why Cry For A Felon?
What was political about Fitzgerald's by-the-numbers pursuit of Libby? Fitzgerald, who says he is a registered independent, was nominated to be U.S. attorney by a Republican senator. He didn't seem to care whether Libby was responsible for the war or not. Had Fitzgerald been politically motivated, he probably could have cooked up a charge against Rove. As for the merits of the case, the jurors, after listening to testimony for weeks and then deliberating for ten days, decided the evidence supported Fitzgerald—even though, as juror Denis Collins said, they felt sympathy for Libby and wondered why he was the only Bush administration official to end up in court in the leak case.
Where's the problem? A leak was investigated. No crime was charged—as often happens in leak cases—but a prosecutor suspected a witness (or target) had lied to the FBI and the grand jury. He investigated thoroughly. He indicted. The defendant was able to mount a multi-million-dollar defense. The jury concluded that the prosecutor was correct and that the defendant had deliberately misled the investigators in a national security case
Credit the members of the Libby Lobby with gratitude, though it comes at a high price: exposing themselves as partisans for whom the war and politics mean more than the truth and law.------
Lovely read. Remember perjury is only a crime if a Democrat is guilty of htat crime.