[Para-Ord.45]

" One possible answer is that someone lied about a material fact when testifying before the grand jury or obstructed justice in some other way. If that is the case, the prosecutor should indict.

However, recent reporting, attributable to “lawyers familiar with the investigation,” points to a different prosecutorial tactic: Fitzgerald may be taking a “creative” approach to finding a legal violation. In other words, he may be trying to find a law other than the Agent Identities Protection Act that he might be able to apply to the factual scenario in this case even though it was never intended to cover such conduct. "

The SP has got nothing,he`s fishing for perjury,making people testify over and over hoping they`ll slip up.Or he`ll just dust off some convoluted law he found in a book somewhere.

All to save face.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

What a lot of people here still aren’t getting is that you don’t have to commit a crime to be in deep legal trouble.

It’s a felony to lie to a Federal investigator even if you are not under other – the way the stature is written, it’s arguably illegal to lie to an IRS agent you meet at a party about your salary.

And it’s not necessary to commit a crime to be guilty of conspiracy – if you, and I, and a friend sit around shooting the bull about some high-tech way to rob a bank, and the US Attorney takes it seriously, we could all find ourselves under indictment.

These days Federal prosecutors have *enormous* latitude in what they can say and do in the course of an investigation – remember the way the FBI kept Monica from contacting an attorney? – and Congress and the courts have been steadily increasing that power for 25 years; if they are in fact charged Karl Rove or Scooter Libby would be far from the first well connected and powerful individuals to discover that the “law and order* regime they helped create considers them just more grist for it’s mill..