At Least He Hasn’t Compared Libby to the Scottsboro Boys. Yet.
By It’s not exactly news that the very reactionary but relatively sane Robert Bork who wrote The Antitrust Paradox has vanished forever, but just for a reminder a commenter points us to these ravings:
More recently, we have witnessed the disgraceful performance of Patrick Fitzgerald, who, knowing from day one who had leaked the name of Valerie Plame and that no crime had been committed [er, no–ed.], not only continued his “investigation” but persuaded those with knowledge of the truth to remain silent. The upshot was press and public suspicion of the president and of Karl Rove for months on end. Moreover, Fitzgerald is responsible for the blatant miscarriage of justice in the conviction of Scooter Libby, whose scandal amounted to recollecting a phone conversation differently from Tim Russert, a feat reminiscent of Mike Nifong’s less successful adventures in prosecutorial abuse.
Yes–he’s really comparing Patrick Fitzgerald to Mike Nifong. (Omitted: what evidence Fitzgerald hid from the defense, the evidence that Libby was innocent, etc.) All this makes Bork’s rousing pean to the genuinely unsuccessful, abusive and unethical work of Ken Starr all the more amusing. Oh, speaking of which, it gets better:
At a time when the administration, the press, and the public should be focused on Iraq, Iran, and the worldwide struggle against jihadists, we will instead be preoccupied with furious partisan battles over essentially irrelevant questions.
Yes, leaving aside that it’s not “irrelevant” when the administration violates federal law, it’s amazing to hear Robert Bork complaining about the country ignoring substantive issues to focus on a “partisan” impeachment battle based on utter trivia. Why, an investigation of Bush might even lead to a former federal judge writing a piece for a highly partisan magazine urging his impeachment! (My favorite line: “calling what took place in the Oval Office “dalliance” falls just short of calling World War II a ‘dustup.'” Oh.) I’ll conclude with this observation from the highly principled intellectual giant:
Lying under oath strikes at the heart of our system of justice and the rule of law. It does not matter in the least what the perjury is about.
Unless Republicans do it, of course.