The Crime of avoiding the non-crime

In Washington politique, it is well known that far more of the "crimes" that are prosecuted involve the apparent cover-up of illegal activity, versus going after the illegal activity itself. This sort of "end-around" has probably been around forever, the earliest example I can think of off the top of my head is the Al Capone stuff (busting him for tax evasion). The theory is that at least the criminal ends up in jail, and from a larger viewpoint it often serves to dismantle an organization by targetting the top players who typically do not participate in the crime itself.

In the past, the situation generally involved real illegal activity ... and although in many cases the prosecution may have been as political as it was legal ... there were real crimes.

The CIA secret agent exposure situation is radically different. In this case, it seems that *everybody* agrees that the *original* act was not a crime. Of course ... the lefties will not let that message get out ... so perhaps the word "everybody" is not correct ... I should have said "everybody that is honest, or has half a brain". Most importantly, the lawmaker that WROTE THE LAW about exposing covert agents said that this situation was not what the law covers.

So, what is the 'crime'?

As we saw in the Martha Stewart case ... in the process of an investigation, you are not allowed to mislead investigators. You do not have to tell them anything, but if you do say something it cannot be misleading. In the grand jury, the stakes go up ... since you are under oath, misleading testimony is perjury.

The problem with many cases, including this one, is that a weasel prosecuter can bring you back to testify time and time again, and during the process cross you up so bad that your answers can seem to conflict with each other. Another ploy is for the prosecuter to ask about some obscure event in the distant past, and if you do not remember the intricate details of the event or even that the event actually happened, you have hung yourself.

Here is the problem with this system ... if you try to be honest and forthcoming, and not overly concerned with covering your butt ... you are more likely to hang yourself! Dishonest people like Hillary Clinton, who answered "I don't recall" some 400+ times in her testimony related to the Rose Law Firm case, skates away because even though they knew she was lying through her teeth, you have a hard time proving if somebody can remember something. If the rumours about this current case prove to be true, it appears that Rove failed to employ the CYA method and actually said he did not have a conversation if he could not remember having it.

So what is the point?

The point to this is that Rove did the right thing ... he tried to answer honestly and forgetting a quick phone call should not be allowed to be a club for beating him to death. Do we, as a nation, really want our leaders to be able to commit crimes with impunity, and then get away with "I don't recall"? If so, then we will end up with nothing but weasel worded scoundrels like the Clintons for all time.

More importantly, we need somebody to stand up and see the forest for the trees ... if there was no crime in the first place, then this investigation to see how many people this prosecutor can spin into a trap is a political exercise. That is what the Democrats want to turn this fight into, because they fight dirty as hell and cannot win any other way (especially at the ballot box). Good people, however, should not put up with it.

If anything does come down, and the prosecutor admits that there was no *original* crime, only a "cover-up" of a non-crime, then George W. Bush should step in and grant a pardon and put an end to this garbage. He should do so with a nationally televised conference ... pointing out how asinine it is to assume that anybody would try to cover up something that nobody believed was a crime in the first place.

If Bill Clinton can pardon *real* criminals for cash, I hardly think that GW should feel even one bit of question about whether he should be able to pardon somebody who did nothing wrong and tried to do the right thing.