[doug from upland]

Good logic by Michael.

[Keith in Iowa]

See also: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1508017/posts

[billclintonwillrotinhell]

That leaves the question of whether Rove, Libby or someone else will be indicted for perjury, obstruction of justice or making false statements in the course of the investigation. But why should there be indictments if there was no crime?

Because we don't want people hindering legitimate investigations by law enforcement. If anybody lied in this case, it's likely that the feds had to use up more taxpayer money and take more time out of the grand jurors' lives to try to sort out what was true and what was false. At the very least, anybody who commits perjury or similar crimes should be forced to pay back the taxpayers for the money that had to be spent because of their illegal dishonesty.

[YaYa123]

oops, so sorry I posted this too, from townhall.com. my mistake.

[jamaksin]

Good article, thank you very much for posting it here.

There seems an irony here with the current Department of Justice - for example, Sandy Berger can take classified documents, admit to it, pay a small fine, get his security clearance suspended (viz., not permanently revoked), ... versus the circus of who said what to whom, when said, and those forever favorites ... how and why said [the standard J-school brattle]?

[Waco]

But get yer hands on 900 FBI files, and ya can be a Senator and maybe run for Prez. and NEVER be questioned about yer crime. What a country!