Quote:
|
The law of obstruction of justice is important, no it's a prosecutor's bailout provision when he can't prosecute for real reasons.
|
I couldn't disagree with you more.
There are a number of things that I think are very interesting about this situation. First, the charges against Libby are the same charges that Clinton was impeached for. The same people who were calling for Clinton's head back then are now questioning the significance of the charges against Libby. I know, the reverse is true as well (re the Democrats). Politicians always have ulterior motives - which is why I find it silly to espouse the position that one side is sincere and right, while the other isn't.
Another thing that is interesting to me is the nature of the charge, itself. It was pretty clear why Clinton lied under oath and "obstructed justice" - His reasons for doing so were pretty clear - he was being sued for sexual harassment, and he did so to defend himself. (I'm not defending him - I'm merely looking at his motives)
All I'm hearing from the Bush supporters is, "There was no leak - there was nothing to leak - no laws were broken." Assuming there is evidence that Libby lied under oath and obstructed justice (and the evidence cited by Fitzgerald, if true, seems substantial to me), then why would he do it? Clinton was covering up his wrongful acts. Would Libby perjure himself to cover up something that wasn't illegal?
To me, the whole thing smacks of political gestapo - Wilson criticized the Bush administration, and they went after him. And then tried to cover it up. If that's true, whoever was involved should be punished. But they won't - Libby will take the fall, and business as usual will continue.