Lying about a crime, the accusation against President William Jefferson Clinton, has itself been a crime since the time of Hammurabi.Then, it was punishable by death. Today, perjury is punishable in federal courts by a fine and up to five years of prison for each count.
Then and now, the theory has been essentially the same: If people are allowed to lie during the investigation of a crime, the crime cannot be proven. It may go unpunished or an innocent person might be wrongly punished.
That is why perjury has never required proof of an underlying crime. Without access to the truth, there may be no way to show the underlying crime. (A perjury indictment unaccompanied by a charge of an underlying crime remains, nonetheless, controversial because critics sometimes see it as the product of a failed probe.)
Perjury, the Supreme Court has said, is "an obvious and flagrant affront to the basic concepts" of justice.
http://www.hypocritae.com/?ART=179
Fred Barbash | Washington Post | August 16, 1998
I agree with your statement. My contention is that the questionable statement has to be material to the investigation.
He Fitzgerald was charged with finding out who leaked a covert agents name, why because leaking a "covert" agents name is a crime.
His first step is to find out if Plame was a covered "covert" agent, if she was not, investigation is stopped, Period.
That is all I'm saying.
Though if Plame was not covered under the law in question, then Libby's answers have no bearing whatsoever on whether or not discussing her was a crime.
In any case, regardless of Libby's fate for his answers, Fitzgerald should be asked to explain his not investigating the basic question he was assigned to determine.