Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past

I think he meant underlying crime.

I seem to recall that the courts some time ago ruled on something like this...that if there was no underlying crime, can there be charges related to a 'cover up.'

I'm not sure.


70 posted on 10/28/2005 9:52:35 AM PDT by Sometimes A River (No more crony picks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]


To: Acts 2:38

Yeah, you have a point about cover up. How can there be a cover up when there was no crime to cover up. But that doesn't apply to obstruction of justice and perjury. That's not about coverup as much as it is about breaking an actual law: You can't lie to a grand jury. You can't take an oath to tell the truth and then not tell the truth, regardless of your reasons.


102 posted on 10/28/2005 9:56:09 AM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people. Ps. 14:34)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies ]

To: Acts 2:38
"I seem to recall that the courts some time ago ruled on something like this...that if there was no underlying crime, can there be charges related to a 'cover up.'"

I think that would relate more to destruction of evidence and such. If the 'evidence' destroyed is not of that of a criminal act, then you've committed no crime by destroying it. Lying under oath, even if you've done nothing else wrong, is still a crime. There's going to be some padding with any charges. I suspect this is all about getting Libby to cough up some useful information to go after someone else. Failing that, I think he'll plead down to one or two charges (the rest being dropped) and end up with probation or a few months at a country club minimum security prison.

Also, just because no indictment has yet been handed down regarding the "leak", that doesn't mean that no crime was commited; only that there is not sufficient evidence for a conviction thus far. We may never know the details of what actually happened, but let's hope this prosecutor is as fair and decent as his record suggests. Some freepers had previous dug up information about his prior work that suggests he's actually a neutral party. Thus far, his aggressive behavior appears to be in line with how he's prosecuted every other case. I think it's a stretch to jump to the conclusion that he must be politically motivated. Let's see what the guy actually does first.
180 posted on 10/28/2005 10:06:02 AM PDT by NJ_gent (Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson