October 22, 2005
Sensible words on Plame
From Bill Kristol at the Weekly Standard. Kristol's views are about the same as mine, that is, prosecute for the crime but not perjury.
If someone knowingly made public the identity of a covert CIA operative and compromised her status, whether to maliciously damage her career, to punish her husband, or to deter criticism of the White House--if, in other words, someone violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982--that person deserves to be fired and prosecuted.
[But ...]
Unless the perjury is clear-cut or the obstruction of justice willful and determined, we hope that the special prosecutor has the courage to end the inquiry without bringing indictments.
Then Kristol does a good job where I failed last week, comparing this to l'Affaire Clinton.
I say this knowing that legions of Clinton defenders will complain that conservatives were happy to support the impeachment of a president for lying under oath seven years ago. My response to the second charge is that if anyone lied under oath the way Bill Clinton did--knowingly and purposefully in order to thwart a legitimate legal process, or if anyone engaged in an obstruction of justice, the way Bill Clinton did, then indictments would be proper. What is more, the Clinton White House mounted an extraordinary--and successful--political campaign against the office of the independent counsel and the person of Kenneth Starr. All the evidence suggests that the Bush White House has been fully cooperative with, even deferential to, the Fitzgerald investigation. And as for the first point, many people in government and politics engage in behavior that is less than admirable. That said, defending one's bosses against criticism, and debunking their attackers, is not a criminal conspiracy. Spin is not perjury. Political hardball is not a felony.
I will stand by these words. If willful obstruction is shown, I will support Fitzgerald. But if he comes out with what I called Martha Stewart charges, you'll hear of my disappointment.
Politics Posted by jk at October 22, 2005 12:13 PM
I seem to remember impeaching Bill Clinton for lying under oath. I don't know where you stood on that, but I thought it was the right thing to do. If Karl lied under oath, then hasta la vista baby.
Posted by: Sugarchuck at October 24, 2005 11:18 AMAs I recall the Clinton thing was all about sex. That's what they said on TV...
As Taranto noted, NYTimes reporters sometimes forget or are mistaken while administration officials "LIED!!!!"
If they lie is "I don't recall" and not germane to the original charge, I am not gonna grab for the ax.
As a more serious answer on the Clinton comparison, his lie took away Paula Jones's chance in court in a civil case. Yup, if Rove lied as blatantly and as directly to case, you bet, hasta...
Posted by: jk at October 24, 2005 3:25 PM | What do you think? [2]