Replies

But in this case, he cannot lie about where and how he first learned of Plame, and he cannot knowingly point fingers at the press as first giving him that information if he knows he first got that information via independent research, inquiry to the CIA.

Could you elaborate?

Does it not matter under the law whether what is being investigated is or is not a crime?

In other words, can a person violate the false statements/obstruction of justice statutes if he lies during an investigation of whether the sky is blue?

Maybe that's the case, based on the idea that no one should ever impede ANY official investigation. But is that the law?

If someone launched a SP investigation into who left sensitive, but not classified info in the trash can and early in the investigation it became clear that no crime was committed, what lines of questioning are based on facts *material* to the investigation, such that lying or obstructing investigation into the facts constitutes a separate crime?

It is not at all unusual to find a perjury or obstruction of justice conviction where the evidence is insufficient to prove an underlying crime.

But your post raises an interesting issue. What if an investigation or grand jury were ginned up not because the criminal investigators or prosecutor had a good faith basis for believing that a crime had been committed, but solely to lay a trap to catch a suspect in the hope that he would lie under oath or try to persuade other witnesses to lie under oath?

I seem to recall looking at some case law on that point many years ago and that the consensus was that the entire perjury or obstruction of justice case could be thrown out for prosecutorial misconduct. That would be the most sensible result.