Couldn't agree more. I guess we'll just have to stay tuned and watch as this unfolds.
It's going to take awhile, I think. Regardless of the ruling on defens motions for deiscovery, either side is apt to appeal.
I've been looking for cites to cases where a perjury conviction stood, with "no underlying crime." The runaway bride story (Wilbanks) came to mind. Running away isn't criminal, so how could lying about it be?
And in Clinton's civil case with Jones, where Jones sought to introduce Lewinski. AN affair with Lewinski isn't a crime, so how can lying about it be?
The government need not prove the legitimacy of the grand jury's investigation which led to the testimony, only the pertinence of the particular testimony to the grand jury's investigation. United States v. Regan, 103 F.3d 1072 (2d Cir. 1997)http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01748.htm