Yes, I know: and the sun still rises in the east. Still.
In a column about Fred Thompson's possible candidacy, she can't resist another attack on Fitzgerald:
I think it's an outrage that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald prosecuted Libby for covering up his actions during Fitzgerald's probe into the leak of a former CIA official's identity -- especially because Fitzgerald never saw fit to prosecute the original leak itself.And yes, once again, she trots out the supposed parallels between Libby and Clinton.
Okay, now, once more for the slow students:
- Fitzgerald has made it clear that Libby's perjury and obstruction made it impossible to determine what underlying crimes may have been committed. That was, in fact, the purpose of Libby's perjury and obstruction. Saunders (like all the other wingnuts who take this line) is saying, in effect, that perjury and obstruction should be charged only if they're unsuccessful.
- The difference between Libby's perjury and Clinton's 'perjury' is that the thing Clinton lied about was not even potentially a crime. It wasn't even relevant to the civil suit in which they originally went fishing for it--a civil suit that was, of course, ultimately determined to have no merit. Again: Libby covered up potential crimes; Clinton didn't. See the difference?
|