Here Klein Goes Again: His Opinion Is NOT a Fact

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 04:05:15 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Joe Klein just asks for it. Now he blathers on the Scooter Libby sentence:

I have a different feeling about Libby. His "perjury" . . .[why in quotes joe? He was convicted of 2 counts of perjury and two counts of obstruction of justice] would never be considered significant enough to reach trial, much less sentencing, much less time in stir if he weren't Dick Cheney's hatchet man.

Joe Klein's basis for this statement? Why nothing but his own imagination. Lying to a grand jury and obstruction of justice are considered serious crimes by every prosecutor I know. They are often prosecuted. See here:

A federal jury yesterday found Allegheny County Sheriff's Capt. Frank Schiralli guilty of perjury for telling a grand jury that he never kept lists of deputies who bought tickets to fund-raisers for Sheriff Pete DeFazio. . . . The two-week trial was the first to develop out of a federal investigation of macing, abuse of power and other illegal activity in DeFazio's office, a probe that began in January.

And here:

Paul K. Charlton, United States Attorney for the District of Arizona, and Eileen J. O’Connor, Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, Tax Division, announced that defendant CHERL A. CULLY, aka CHEY CULLY, 39 years old, of`Scottsdale, Arizona, entered a plea of guilty on December 23, 2003, to the charge that she provided false testimony before a federal grand jury.

And here. And here. and here</a. And here.

The facts seems to be that charges of lying to a grand jury are brought fairly regularly.

A decent journalist would know this. A decent journalist would find out before writing what Klein wrote. The conclusions one can draw are then, Klein is noit a decent journalist or on this matter, Klein has decide that he need not follow the most basic rules of journalism.

I wonder if Joe remembers this one?

The trial of Julie Hiatt Steele, the only person to be charged with a crime in connection with the Monica Lewinsky investigation by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, opened May 3 in US District Court in Alexandria, Virginia. Steele, a 52-year-old single mother, faces three counts of obstruction of justice and one count of making false statements, charges that could send her to prison for up to 35 years if convicted.

Oh by the way, Starr's prosecution FAILED. I don't recall Joe Klein bitching about THAT abuse by Ken Starr.

Does Time Magazine need an Ombudsman? Based on this, the answer is yes.

< Memo to Byron York: Going To Jail Pending Appeal Is The Norm, Not The Exception | Feds Remove Religious Texts From Prison Chapel Libraries >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Here Klein Goes Again: His Opinion Is NOT a Fact | 8 comments (8 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

yer link "Scooter Libby sentence" (none / 0) (#1)
by TeddySanFran on Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 04:42:21 PM EST

that link comes right back to this post.

Feel free to delete this comment after repairs are made....

Here's the Link (none / 0) (#2)
by Molly Bloom on Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 04:53:05 PM EST

At Swampland

the more i follow joe klein, (none / 0) (#3)
by profmarcus on Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 05:28:47 PM EST

the more i realize that - like broder, novak, and friedman - his brand of so-called journalism is particularly insidious... he's polished, he's articulate, and he's well-placed at a major national news outlet that reinforces his ability to make pronouncements on the national scene... these people are an integral part of keeping the population in thrall and fit chomsky's description of the elites in this country and their masters perfectly... the boundaries of klein's world - power and privilege - are identical to those of his masters, and he knows full well that taking a divergent or more thoughtful view would jeopardize his status in that world... it's not unlike what i've seen happen to so many people as they rise up the corporate ladder... at one point in their lives, they were ordinary human beings, but, in learning to blend in and play the system, they eventually became detached from their moorings... why, after all would anyone, after all that hard work, repudiate the very system that brought you your success...?

And, yes, I DO take it personally

Perjury by police is rarely prosecuted. (none / 0) (#4)
by Yes2Truth on Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 07:39:44 PM EST

I've contested traffic tickets five or six times, and from the very first one to the last one, the ticketing officer perjured himself in court.

The last time it happened, the officer claimed he was about a quarter of a mile from where he was whenever I passed him and in court he even changed the direction he was heading - from due South to due East.

I filed a complaint against him and the allegation was "investigated" and the finding was "insufficient evidence" to bring charges.

Perjury and lying to a grand jury ARE serious offenses, in my opinion, but in the eyes of most prosecutors, if the liar is "in the system", they aren't likely to be prosecuted. Scooter just happened to be a convenient rung on the career ladder of a (typically) ambitious prosecutor.

: a (typically) ambitious prosecutor (none / 0) (#5)
by Edger on Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 07:45:52 PM EST

Or an atypically honest Bush administration political appointee?

specious reasoning (none / 0) (#6)
by diogenes on Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 11:51:24 PM EST

What is the denominator here? How many times do people commit perjury in grand jury and trial proceedings or in sworn affidavits? Thousands? How many charges are actually brought? Not too many, if the only ones cited here are from 2003. A person usually gets charged with perjury only if the prosecuting authority is really, really mad at them (can you say GOP congress and Bill Clinton?).

Klein is correct insofar that (none / 0) (#8)
by Deconstructionist on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 06:52:54 AM EST

many instances of perjury/obstruction are not pursued even where the available evidence is as strong as in Libby's case.

Resources are limited. Judgments as to which cases to pursue must be made. Ability to prove cases is a predominant factor but it is no the only one.

One factor which should be considered is the harm caused by the alleged crime. As an example, a crooked accountant lying about the books of a small businessman client suspected of tax evasion and hiding/destroying papers relevant to the investigation does not cause the same degree of harm as when a very high ranking federal official lies about an investigation related to his official duties. The same statutes might apply to the accountant as to Libby, but which case is more important?

The argument that special counsels are relieved of the resource limitation issues facing "regular prosecutors" and more likely to prosecute "ancillary" crimes is probably true, but that is because they are appointed only in "special" cases.

In summary, it is beyond question that the majority of instances of perjury or obstruction are not prosecuted even where the facts are known to prosecutors. The problem is that fact does not support the onclusion that it is wrong to "single out" high ranking public officials for more vigilant enforecement when they do it.

: Seriousness (none / 0) (#9)
by MiddleOfTheRoad on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 08:04:00 AM EST

True - this was the case which the President himself said was very serious, one that he wanted to get to the bottom of.