It would appear that I am destined always to disagree with Jeffrey Rosen, even when he is being most reasonable and even politically appealing, as in this New Republic article blasting special prosecutor Fitzgerald for his indictment of Scooter Libby.
Just as Democrats were right to denounce Starr for criminalizing insignificant and immaterial lies, Republicans are right to denounce Fitzgerald for the criminalization of political differences.
I disagree, on both counts. To argue, as Rosen does, that perjury or false statement indictments are irresponsible when divorced from a serious underlying crime is to say that perjury itself is not a serious crime.
Just as I believed, and continue to believe, that perjury is an impeachable offense for a law enforcement official — especially for the chief law enforcement official in the country — I also believe Libby should have been indicted — and should be convicted if he’s guilty — for lying to the FBI and the Grand Jury, even though I don’t believe there was any “underlying” crime, such as violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act
Call me a formalist.
Can’t a formalist simultaneously believe 1) that perjury is a serious crime even when divorced from a serious underlying crime and 2) that certain types of prosecutorial conduct are worthy of denunciation? I can easily envision a set of circumstances under which perjury would be offensive in the absence of any other crime . . . but I can also envision a set of cirrcumstances under which prosecutors are given too wide a berth and deserve to have their ears pinned back. Isn’t the latter all that Rosen was saying, at least in this quote?
Fenster
Can’t a formalist simultaneously believe 1) that perjury is a serious crime even when divorced from a serious underlying crime and 2) that certain types of prosecutorial conduct are worthy of denunciation?
Fenster – Yes.
But one can also believe that special prosecutors are often appointed when they shouldn’t be, that their appointment often gives them too much latitude, that they often stray too far from what they are supposed to be investigating … and still believe that when they encounter perjury they are nevertheless entitled to indict it.
“Republicans are right to denounce Fitzgerald for the criminalization of political differences.”
When did he Fitzgerald do that?
When did Fitzgerald criminalize politics? According to Rosen and many others, when he indicted Libby.
“When did Fitzgerald criminalize politics? According to Rosen and many others, when he indicted Libby.”
Not when the crimes were committed by politicians?