Conservatives Finally Learn What Perjury Means

The other day, in the National Review, Byron York devoted an entire 15 paragraph piece to debunking a claim that I don't think anyone is actually making: specifically, that Karl Rove's claim that Matt Cooper called to discuss welfare reform might form the basis of a perjury charge. Certainly many people have pointed out that Rove's version of the call is inconsistent with Cooper's version, and I'm sure that these same people have speculated that Fitzgerald might be pursuing perjury charges against Rove. But I don't think anyone has suggested that that particular inconsistency could or should result in a perjury charge. I think the perjury speculation has mainly centered around the possibility that Rove lied about how he first learned of Plame's identity, or that he lied when he claimed not to have know she was covert. Leave it to York to focus his "defense" on the most inconsequential of Rove's potential lies.

Nevertheless, it's nice to know that York and his friends at the National Review have finally bothered to read the perjury statute. York correctly points out that materiality is an element of any perjury charge. In other words, you have to do more than just lie under oath; you have to lie about a material fact. York is undoubtedly correct when he observes that even if Rove's claim about discussing welfare was a lie, it was immaterial and therefore did not constitute perjury. It's funny how this particular feature of the law was so consistently "overlooked" back in 1998 when the folks at the National Review were so rabidly pushing for Clinton's impeachment over lies that were quite clearly immaterial (and made in connection with a frivolous civil suit, not a criminal grand jury investigation with national security ramifications). It only took them seven years to learn what perjury means.