Rebutting the "no underlying crime" spin
Debate practice. The spin coming from the right that there was no underlying crime is laughable, but it needs to be countered. Offer up your best rebuttals in the comments. Here's some to get us started.
How is the prosecuter supposed to get to the underlying crime if he's being lied to? That's why they call it obstruction of justice. And if you believe in the rule of law, lying to a grand jury is not a "technicality."
If there's no underlying crime, why is Libby lying? It may be difficult to prove, but we all know Libby is lying to protect Cheney. As far as I'm concerned, either Cheney had to know she was covert, or he had to make it his business to know. The bottom line is the Vice President is involved in obscuring the true reasons they led the country into war. Is there any worse crime than this?