I didn't realize the SEC complaint proper (against MS & Bacanovic) had been concluded. Agreed that the charge of false statement was valid, and she was convicted for that.
I suppose a better example would be Bill Clinton for his false statements under oath in the Paula Jones civil case, which was settled/dismissed.
For the nth time, Libby's testimony was not material. It was not necessary one way or the other, for Fitzgerald to learn there was no crime.
Your test of materiality is tempting, but incorrect. Your conclusion is based on the fact that Plame was not covert, therefore the entire investigation was bogus. That defense was raised, albeit too late in the game, by Miller & Cooper in the amicus brief arguing for rehearing en banc before the US Circuit Court of Appeals. The Courts have not addressed that argument.
Whether Libby had or had not leaked her name--and whether he lied about it -- is all completely irrelevant as to whether a crime occurred.
The test of materiality is not "whether or not a crime occurred." In the instant case, the independent counsel was charged with fining out exactly that, and we agree, would have concluded "no crime." That does not excuse lying to the investigators. In the alternative, a person called to testify could assert what you do here, in lieu of testifying.
This is what Joe DiGenova says.
He said otherwise regarding Bill Clinton's perjury.
On May 21, 2004, federal prosecutors charged a Secret Service special agent with perjury for allegedly lying in the trial of Martha Stewart and her broker, Peter Bacanovic.In this instance, the government witness, Larry Stewart, was accused of testifying falsely that he had personally examined Martha Stewart's broker's worksheet before he testified about the ink. Had he been convicted, Larry Stewart could have faced a maximum sentence under federal law on each perjury count of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine per criminal count. However, a federal jury in Manhattan found him not guilty on October 5, 2004.
http://gbr.pepperdine.edu/043/lying.html
To state that the chief law enforcement officer of the United States has obstructed justice or committed perjury is to define the seriousness of the crime. Such seriousness is not lost because it was a civil proceeding or later dismissed by the trial court.http://www.digenovatoensing.com/inthenews/robert_ray_0101.htm
The main policy in this case is that courts very much do not want people to tell deliberate lies on the witness stand and, in general, take the view that defects in the steps that may bring witnesses to the stand are not adequate reason for tolerating the lies and foregoing punishment. A number of Supreme Court decisions reflect this general policy.Thus, in Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855 (1966), convictions for filing false non-Communist affidavits were sustained, the Court holding that it did not matter whether the underlying statute that required them violated the First Amendment. Id. at 867; see also Bryson v. United States, 396 U.S. 64, 72 (1969). Similarly, in United States v. Mandujano, 425 U.S. 564, 576, 584 (1976), and United States v. Wong, 431 U.S. 174, 176-78 (1977), the respective failures to give a grand jury witness a Miranda warning (in one case) or a warning as to the privilege against self-incrimination (in the other) were held not to excuse the subsequent perjury of the witness. Other cases are to the same effect.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=1st&navby=case&no=022276
"I suppose a better example would be Bill Clinton for his false statements under oath in the Paula Jones civil case, which was settled/dismissed."
Wrong again.
There was a crime, or the real possibility of a crime. Clinton in effect admitted to his guilt by settling.
"Your test of materiality is tempting, but incorrect. Your conclusion is based on the fact that Plame was not covert, therefore the entire investigation was bogus. That defense was raised, albeit too late in the game, by Miller & Cooper in the amicus brief arguing for rehearing en banc before the US Circuit Court of Appeals."
I don't think you understand how Grand Juries work. There was no defense.
The brief offered by the media was completely apart.