Replies

"No underlying crime...but he made some up during the proceedings."

EXACTLY. how absurd is it that the crime being investigated is now a done deal - IE it didn't happen. but hey, someone, somewhere, certainly made an inconsistent statement over two years of dullard testimony.

"No underlying crime...but he made some up during the proceedings."

If the charges are not significantly superior to what Sandy Burger should have been charged with, this prosecutor has much to answer for.

With all due respect, even if there wasn't an underlying crime, we have to follow the law within the investigation. If the prosecutor is nit-picking over a few minor inconsistencies, that is one thing. But if these guys lied to cover up something that wasn't even a crime, they're idiots. What will it take for people to learn that the "cover-up" is worse than the "crime". Remember when the judge threw out the Paula Jones case and Clinton was banging on the bongo drums? Their side thought, since there was no Jones case, the perjury and Obstruction of Justice by Clinton shouldn't be pursued. Sorry -- Clinton still broke the law, even if he thought it was no biggie because the case was a non-issue. I hope the NYT is wrong. But, if they did break the law trying to cover something that wasn't even criminal, they deserve to face charges. We can't lower ourselves to the democrat standards.