These are the dregs left for the Justice Department 17 months after the Senate voted against the impeachment of President Clinton: Did a spokesman for investigator Kenneth Starr lie about giving out information concerning whether Mr. Starr had the authority to indict President Clinton, a man, coincidentally, also accused of lying about whether he had acted improperly? If it is legally permissible for presiding Judge Norma Holloway Johnson to answer that question with, “Maybe, but who cares?,” she should do so and end this silliness.

That is not likely to happen, given her previous decision to proceed with criminal charges of contempt even after a Court of Appeals found that Charles G. Bakaly III did not release any information that might be secret to a grand jury. And while there is nothing silly about his alleged actions – lying when he told a federal judge he had no role in giving out the information to a New York Times reporter in January 1999 – there is something wacky about using the Department of Justice to pursue a minor player in a drama long over.

Certainly, the information that Mr. Bakaly was said to have leaked – that Mr. Starr thought he had enough evidence to indict the president and was considering proceeding -was important at the time, but it was hardly revelatory. Speculation throughout that month was that the investigation was headed in that direction, and given Mr. Starr’s earlier actions, it would have been no surprise if it did. As for leaks from officials who should be keeping their mouths shut, they seem as common as extramarital affairs in Washington, and hardly the subject of so serious a case.

Mr. Bakaly admits only that he did not release “nonpublic” information, an assertion that the appeals court ruling seems to support. Nevertheless, Judge Johnson reportedly will convict Mr. Bakaly of the criminal charges if the government can show that his comments to the press caused the court to hold two in-chambers conferences with outside counsel – that is, if he caused the court a measurable amount of extra work. But if causing added work for the courts is a criminal offense, will Judge Johnson also go after all the paper-producing lawyers who clog the courts?

Of course not. The government in this case is lacking the same perspective that Mr. Starr lost as he pursued President Clinton, and is letting an individual’s minor transgression bear the brunt of accumulated frustration in a process that left common sense behind years ago.