Scooter Libby

Perjury is perjury, Scott, and it's just wrong, semper et ubique. It doesn't matter whom he was trying to protect. It doesn't matter that the investigation in which he lied should have been discontinued (or that the deposition in which Clinton lied should never have taken place.) It doesn't matter that he's a good guy 99% of the time. It doesn't matter that others, worse than he, are escaping their deserts. It doesn't matter that he's a friend of Bill Kristol or Jody Bottum. Regardless of the occasion, regardless of who does it or what the motive is, lying under oath is never okay. Numquam. Nunca. Jamais. Nikogda. Not in a box, not with a fox. Not here or there, not anywhere. So said a conservative Republican prosecutor, so said a jury, so said a Bush-appointed federal judge and (anticlimax alert) so say I.

As Scott mentioned, being guilty of perjury doesn't mean he lied. It is completely realistic that he simply said the wrong thing, or remembered things incorrectly. But the real problem is the sentencing. And in this case, it matters greatly whether or not the investigation should have taken place. It isn't possible for someone to be convicted of leaking Plame's name. So there was no crime committed before the investigation started. To think that he intentionally lied to cover up a non-existent crime stretches the imagination. In our justice system, motives matter a great deal, unlike what our nameless friend might say. It's the difference between first and second degree murder. It's why you don't get a the death penalty for vehicular homicide. An error in judgement is not punished as severely as intentionally breaking the law.