Perjury

[Guest]

Some have been saying it would be wrong to indict in the Wilson/Plame affair on perjury if an indictment could not be obtained for the primary charge, that is, exposing a covert agent.

Ironically, some of those making those statements were the most vehement about impeaching President Clinton for perjury.

How do you feel?

 

[BlackShanglan]

I think perjury, evading justice, destruction of evidence, and all similar crimes must be punished whenever possible and as substantially as possible. These are crimes one commits while attempting to evade punishment for another crime. They are crimes no honest person should commit, and they should be prosecuted and punished accordingly.

Shanglan

 

[minsue]

It's comparable to arresting someone on the sole charge of "resisting arrest" It was wrong with Clinton and it's wrong now. That said, the malicious child in me has been doing a gleeful dance since they stated the likelihood yesterday. (there's a reason I keep her locked up in the back of me brain, you know...)

 

[minsue]

I think perjury, evading justice, destruction of evidence, and all similar crimes must be punished whenever possible and as substantially as possible. These are crimes one commits while attempting to evade punishment for another crime. They are crimes no honest person should commit, and they should be prosecuted and punished accordingly.

Shanglan

I agree with you if there's actually another crime that's been committed. When there is not enough evidence to charge anything else, it reeks of bullying.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I agree with you if there's actually another crime that's been committed. When there is not enough evidence to charge anything else, it reeks of bullying.

Hmmm. Well, I may be prejudiced. I can't see why an innocent person would lie. Surely it would be to his benefit to tell the truth.

My concern is that with those sorts of charges, the actions themselves may be the reason why no charges can be pressed - because the lies, evasion, and destruction of evidence were successful. I think it's important that those crimes be punished severely, or people will assume no risk in taking those actions.

Shanglan

 

[elsol]

Perjury is lying or making verifiably false statements under oath in a court of law. Perjury is a crime because the witness has sworn to tell the truth, and for the credibility of the court, witness testimony must be relied on as being truthful. It is seen as a very serious crime as it seeks to usurp the authority of the courts, because it can lead to miscarriages of justice.

It also applies to witnesses who have affirmed they are telling the truth. (Affirmation is used by witness who are unable to swear to tell the truth. For example, in the United Kingdom a witness may swear on the Bible or other holy book. But if a witness has no religion, or does not wish to swear on a holy book, they may make an affirmation that they are telling the truth instead.) Perjury also applies when witnesses have made a statement under penalty of perjury, even if they have not been sworn or affirmed before an appropriate official. An example of this is the United States' income tax return, which, for public policy reasons, must be signed as true and correct under penalty of perjury.

Perjury is not lying about a crime...

Perjury is taking an oath to tell the truth and lying... in a situation where lying disrupts the ENTIRE system.

This is as flat a black&white situation as can be.

Otherwise, we start getting into discussions of whether 'other' witnesses can stretch the truth on the stand.

The other option is to plead the fifth.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Wildcard Ky]

Perjury is a crime, regardless of who does it, or what their reasoning is.

I agreed with the perjury charges against Clinton. I don't care WHY he was lying. IMO his answer should have been "It's none of your business what I do in my personal life as long as I"m not breaking the law".

I try not to reach conclusions before all of the facts come out. I haven't passed any kind of judgment in the current affair. If Libby, Rove, or anyone else has perjured themselves, I hope the truth comes out, and I hope they pay a heavy price.

If they haven't perjured themselves, I hope that comes out as well.

 

[elsol]

It's comparable to arresting someone on the sole charge of "resisting arrest" It was wrong with Clinton and it's wrong now. That said, the malicious child in me has been doing a gleeful dance since they stated the likelihood yesterday. (there's a reason I keep her locked up in the back of me brain, you know...)

So?

If the cops knock on your door with a 'verifiable, signed, in good faith gotten' arrest warrant and you shoot at them...

That's not a crime?

We're drawing very pretty lines of distinction because someone 'might' be innocent... at the time of the questioning or the arrest, nobody knows that.

We all either play by the rules or let's chuck them.

My vote is to chuck them, but as my arguments with Amicus goes.. I know what I do if we chuck the rules.

A lot of people become lunch.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Belegon]

So?

If the cops knock on your door with a 'verifiable, signed, in good faith gotten' arrest warrant and you shoot at them...

That's not a crime?

oh c'mon...that's not even close to the point being made...nor would that be classified as "resisting arrest"...

that's attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon and assaulting a peace officer..

huge difference, and too extreme even as metaphor

 

[ffreak]

Based upon the use of "lying to an investigator" as the charge to put people away simply because they have public exposure is something I am against. I do think that laws should be administered the same way for everyone. But it's not right to put away: Michael Millikan on a technical issue because they proved he lied to the investigator (not that he sold junk bonds with a label that said don't buy these if you can't afford to lose the money); or Martha Stewart who has been angered enough by being trapped in a lie about whether or not she got a hint that every stock investor tries to get - she'll make way more money than she lost by selling off stock just before it took a dive (she didn't precipitate the dive, she didn't make money on the dive); or Lil' Kim because she was so rattled with a shoot-out raging around her that she couldn't remember who was there or what she said (she didn't shoot a gun, she couldn't possibly give a definitive answer about who shot at whom).

Add to that point of view that if you did say something to someone, whom you thought was cleared to hear what you're telling them (talk between the VP and his Chief of Staff and Rove), there is no harm - not only that, you are bound by law to tell anyone who asks that you did not say anything (law requiring you to lie to the investigator - if you do lie, it's perjury; if you don't lie, it's treason).

Now the part where someone said something to someone who wasn't cleared to hear that kind of conversation? Letting the cat out of the bag that led up to questions asked of Rove and Libby (and Cheney), well that was stupid, wasn't it? That's a felony in this case, revealing something that is classified information (the identity of an agent of the CIA) to someone who is not cleared for that. There is where the crime is and if we allow the administration to cover it up with a lesser charge (you lied to me! put your hands out where I can slap them), then that is a crime.


Oh, I'm also outraged that they've arrested the mother of a teenager who has been accused of a felony. I'm sorry, but that seems to come under a similar vein as not being able to force a spouse to testify against you. Come on, what kind of a mother would she be if she told the police where he was? Especially if when the dust settles it turns out he didn't do it? He's not guilty of the murder until they prove it. Considering the number of death row inmates who are getting cleared these days on DNA evidence, I think we're a little too quick to grab a likely suspect, point out all the circumstantial evidence and then try to send them to the gas chamber. In most cases where a convicted murderer has been proven to be innocent, the prosecution is also proven to have ignored other leads that included the real murderer for the simple fact that they had a suspect in custody.

There is a brilliant article in Harper's magazine that analysis an Umberto Eco treatise on how corporate fascism is rampant in America. How we don't dare disagree with the 'party' line as promoted by big business. This is where we're getting the basic idea that to refuse to incriminate ones-self is illegal. Like the idea that using a horrible event to start monitoring what a person checks out of the library, or purchases at a bookstore, or worse yet, online, can be used as 'evidence' that a person is a threat to the security of their neighbors because of reading something. We all know where that ends up going; if I can't read what I want and express my opinion, no matter what that opinion is or who disagrees with that opinion, then places like Lit will go away. Books like To Kill a Mockingbird and Gilead (this years Pulitzer winner) will disappear from the shelves because they contain "dangerous ideas". Yet today we have special prosecutors who can jail someone without a judge and without appeal. Yeah, that's a basic tenant of fascism, that those in power have the right to jail anyone who threatens that power.

Somehow, I get the feeling that Cheney, et al, are perfectly willing to have the focus on the Plame issue so that attention will be diverted from the billions of dollars being bilked from the government by the company Cheney ran and is scheduled to go back to after 2008. The endangerment of Plame was schoolyard vengeance and an illegal act by someone whose head is so swollen with power that they thought it did not matter. That is where the focus should be. Shame on them if they allow this to be covered by scapegoats.

Old west justice still runs amok - between pokes when they're available, willing or not.

Thank you for giving me an outlet - I feel better now. I'll go quietly. (and if the prosecutor is reading this, I did not write any of it - I have no idea how it got posted - that's my story and I'm sticking to it)

 

[BlackShanglan]

oh c'mon...that's not even close to the point being made...nor would that be classified as "resisting arrest"...

that's attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon and assaulting a peace officer..

huge difference, and too extreme even as metaphor

Possibly, but he has a point. Much as we would very much like for only guilty people to be arrested, humans are fallible and evidence can be confusing. I don't think it's reasonable to make a rule that, essentially, anyone who feels that s/he should not be arrested can resist arrest by such means as s/he chooses. However ugly it would be to be arrested for a crime one had not committed, only chaos and utter failure of any prompt and reasonable system would follow if people felt that they always had the option of resisting violently. I'd argue the same for perjury and similar offenses. If there are no consequences, why not do it?

 

[ffreak]

We're drawing very pretty lines of distinction because someone 'might' be innocent... at the time of the questioning or the arrest, nobody knows that.

That is the point. There is a huge distinction in our legal system that assumes we are all innocent of any charge against us until proven guilty in a court of law. That's why we have protections so the government can't just arrest people they don't like or whom they don't want to have people hear. We have this convenient charge available to the police now called 'enemy combatant' (can we say Salem Witch Hunt?) and once that charge is leveled, we can be held indefinitely (read - die in jail) without a hearing, without a lawyer, without due process. That is unconstitutional on the face of it, and yet, using our own rules, the Supreme Court disagrees. What happened to protection of our rights against unjust persecution by the government?

 

[cloudy]

Not sure how many of you remember when I was arrested back in February. Everything is cleared up now, except the resisting arrest charge I'm still facing since I 'hurt' a 300 lb. cop's back.

Saying prosecute it to the fullest extent of the law leaves me, all 130 lbs. of me, facing a felony charge because a cop didn't identify himself, and I fought back - and then he lied about it.

 

[hugo_sam]

Not sure how many of you remember when I was arrested back in February. Everything is cleared up now, except the resisting arrest charge I'm still facing since I 'hurt' a 300 lb. cop's back.

Saying prosecute it to the fullest extent of the law leaves me, all 130 lbs. of me, facing a felony charge because a cop didn't identify himself, and I fought back - and then he lied about it.

Sh*t Cloudy!
Before my time, but best wishes on a successful resolution. Given where we are, please get a good lawyer.

 

[Belegon]

Possibly, but he has a point. Much as we would very much like for only guilty people to be arrested, humans are fallible and evidence can be confusing. I don't think it's reasonable to make a rule that, essentially, anyone who feels that s/he should not be arrested can resist arrest by such means as s/he chooses. However ugly it would be to be arrested for a crime one had not committed, only chaos and utter failure of any prompt and reasonable system would follow if people felt that they always had the option of resisting violently. I'd argue the same for perjury and similar offenses. If there are no consequences, why not do it?

in theory this would be correct. the problem is that is not how such a thing would be used. the point I was making is that using violence in the direction of the peace officer, especially as extreme an example as using a firearm, creates an emotional response that is inapproriate in terms of the comparison to perjury.

the actual use of the charge of "resisting arrest" is limited to much less extreme examples. Perjury is a charge that is also along these lines, a fairly low level of resistance if you will. Allowing the emotional triggers evoked by the image of someone firing on a police officer in relation to the original metaphor is a disservice.

Originally Posted by elsol
So?

If the cops knock on your door with a 'verifiable, signed, in good faith gotten' arrest warrant and you shoot at them...

That's not a crime?

No one is going to be put away for life or, more likely, shot and killed for commiting perjury. But that is how extreme firing a weapon is.

Anyway...I feel that felony perjury may be appropriate in many cases...but I also agree that it is a charge that is often misused, just as resisting arrest is...

 

[ffreak]

Not sure how many of you remember when I was arrested back in February. Everything is cleared up now, except the resisting arrest charge I'm still facing since I 'hurt' a 300 lb. cop's back.

Saying prosecute it to the fullest extent of the law leaves me, all 130 lbs. of me, facing a felony charge because a cop didn't identify himself, and I fought back - and then he lied about it.

I agree with hugo_sam, cloudy, get yourself a lawyer in the same town who knows the judge and will harp on the cop did not identify himself clearly enough to you. Make sure your lawyer gets across that you considered this man to be threatening your life. And wear your skinniest looking, plain jane outfit and no heels on the day you appear in court to emphasize the differences between this behemoth and you.

I'll be pulling for the judge to throw it out, laughing at the cop who considers himself a big man for picking on little ol' you.

 

[elsol]

oh c'mon...that's not even close to the point being made...nor would that be classified as "resisting arrest"...

that's attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon and assaulting a peace officer..

huge difference, and too extreme even as metaphor

Here is what was said....

It's comparable to arresting someone on the sole charge of "resisting arrest"

Now to be resisting arrest the cops have to be trying to arrest you... right?

You don't get charged with resisting arrest for punching a cop in the mouth... that's assault.

If the cop has a good faith reason to arrest you... and 'resist arrest' at whatever level you wish... you've just committed a crime.

Take an example:

A woman is killed.
The cops find a videotape and recognize Joe-Blow as the murderer...
They go out try to arrest Joe-Blow and he resists... call it punching the cops in the mouth, shooting at them, or whatever.
Then the cops find out Joe-Blow has a twin brother Joe-Suck who actually committed the murder.

Did Joe-Blow all of a sudden NOT commit a crime by resisting arrest?

Fuck yeah, he did... the attempt to arrest was lawful.

The fact that there was no 'original crime' committed by you is not a defense against your commission of the new crime.

It's not 'Resisting Arrest unless you so-happen to be innocent'.

And actually it IS 'Resisting Arrest' but since that's a misdemeanor, the prosecutor is going to have much bigger fish to fry with you.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[elsol]

That is the point. There is a huge distinction in our legal system that assumes we are all innocent of any charge against us until proven guilty in a court of law. That's why we have protections so the government can't just arrest people they don't like or whom they don't want to have people hear. We have this convenient charge available to the police now called 'enemy combatant' (can we say Salem Witch Hunt?) and once that charge is leveled, we can be held indefinitely (read - die in jail) without a hearing, without a lawyer, without due process. That is unconstitutional on the face of it, and yet, using our own rules, the Supreme Court disagrees. What happened to protection of our rights against unjust persecution by the government?

The question isn't about 'unjust arrest'.... No one has even been arrested yet.

This is you were called to testify and rather than say 'I take the fifth'... you chose to lie.

Done.

"Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?"

No.

"Did you do so-and-so?"

I plead the fifth.


Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[cloudy]

I agree with hugo_sam, cloudy, get yourself a lawyer in the same town who knows the judge and will harp on the cop did not identify himself clearly enough to you. Make sure your lawyer gets across that you considered this man to be threatening your life. And wear your skinniest looking, plain jane outfit and no heels on the day you appear in court to emphasize the differences between this behemoth and you.

I'll be pulling for the judge to throw it out, laughing at the cop who considers himself a big man for picking on little ol' you.

my attorney's father is a judge here in town.

Even so, I'm still facing having that on my record, even if the penalty is small. Resisting arrest is a charge that any cop can throw on you anytime they like. Anyone who thinks that cops don't lie lives in a make-believe world.

and el sol: it's not a misdemeanor here, it's a felony.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

If someone lies under oath, they need to have the fullest consequences of that brought to bear. Our entire system of justice is based ont he idea a man's oath is his bond. If people will not stand up to that, then all eyewitness testimony is suspect. Judges would have to become solomon's. Deciding who is telling the truth and who islying in a he said she said situation.

Clinton lied under oath. He should have been jailed. For those who say the question shouldn't have been asked, All I can say is this, if he lied about something you consider immaterial, why should any of us assume he wasn't lying his ass off about things that were? We can't, because he undermined every word of his testimony. And as a lawyer, he was damned well aware of it. With the option to plead the fifth, he CHOSE to lie. His oath meant shit.

If someone has lied under oath in this situation, they need to be prosecuted for it to the fullest extent of the law. In basic, whoever outed her was commiting attempted murder as far as I can see. It isn't like the people she was working against on behalf of our government are squaemish about killing folks they consider traitors ya know.

Be it Libby, Rove, Cheny or Bush, prosecute em, stick em in the federal pen at lleavenworth in the general population and make em serve every freaking second of the time they earned.

If people hadn't given Clinton a free pass on his perjury, maybe the people accused of it now wouldn't have decided it was the best way to go. If you've established you aren't going to prosecut eit seriously, then it dosen't seem like such a bad idea. If Billw as still behind bars for it, they might decide the fifth was the batter way to go and the out the fathers put in there so you wouldn't be expected to incriminate yourself.

Ya think?

 

[Belegon]

Here is what was said....


Now to be resisting arrest the cops have to be trying to arrest you... right?

You don't get charged with resisting arrest for punching a cop in the mouth... that's assault.

If the cop has a good faith reason to arrest you... and 'resist arrest' at whatever level you wish... you've just committed a crime.

Take an example:

A woman is killed.
The cops find a videotape and recognize Joe-Blow as the murderer...
They go out try to arrest Joe-Blow and he resists... call it punching the cops in the mouth, shooting at them, or whatever.
Then the cops find out Joe-Blow has a twin brother Joe-Suck who actually committed the murder.

Did Joe-Blow all of a sudden NOT commit a crime by resisting arrest?

Fuck yeah, he did... the attempt to arrest was lawful.

The fact that there was no 'original crime' committed by you is not a defense against your commission of the new crime.

It's not 'Resisting Arrest unless you so-happen to be innocent'.

And actually it IS 'Resisting Arrest' but since that's a misdemeanor, the prosecutor is going to have much bigger fish to fry with you.

Sincerely,
ElSol

Cloudy's example clearly illustrates what I am talking about...whether a small town or a big city, "resisting arrest" is a charge that is sometimes used to "get back" at people. That specific use of "resisting arrest" lends itself better to the original topic than "assault with a deadly weapon" does. I have seen a person charged with "resisting arrest" for simply pulling a hand away before it could be handcuffed. Said person turned out to not be the person named on the warrant and yet still ended up facing the charge in court.

the point is not whether or not resisting arrest is a crime. the point is that the use of extreme force creates an emotional reaction that is not appropriate for use in comparison to the original metaphor.

Does anyone have any doubt that the use of the crime of perjury in the Clinton case was as an attempt to "get back" at him for committing the sin of not being who the opponents wanted him to be? Did he commit perjury? That is actually beside the point...

 

[ffreak]

In a simple, ordinary, television world kind of way, I fully agree with you, el sol. For most people, they would go into a court of law, get sworn in, and if they lie instead of taking the fifth in that case, they have broken the law. But you still should have to prove they knew they were lying. A videotape of someone opening a door for the accused, does not mean she's aware of who opened the door (the 'proof' used to jail Lil' Kim. Besides, what does it matter to any point of justice that she lied about who held the door? What difference does it make to anything other than a prosecutor who wants to show he can jail a celebrity?)

But what we're experiencing in this country right now is prosecutors charging people with perjury without having testified in front of a judge. What most people do not get is that the prosecutorial staff of our country is pushing the envelope of finding ways to disallow the use of the 5th amendment. If you are called to depose, you are under the same obligation of truth as though you were in court, but there is no judge to reel in the behavior (or lies) of the prosecutor. And it's still up in the air as to whether you can cite the 5th in that circumstance (prosecutors say you don't have such a right during deposition) - giving the prosecutor the ability to find you in contempt and jail you because you are interfering with their investigation by refusing to incriminate yourself. So which do you choose? To lie, or sit behind bars until you agree to inciminate yourself?

Look at cloudy's case on resisting arrest: it comes down to her word vs a cop who does not want to seen as wrong and how do you prove he's lying? And if they disallow her claim of him not identifying himself (if he can lie, he can get a false corraborator), then she's committed perjury under the current trend.

If someone takes the stand and says they didn't know anything about an illegal activity and the prosecution produces a copy of a letter written on the witness's computer and they have the hard drive in hand - open/shut case of perjury (and we won't go into fabrication of evidence).

He said-she said, should never be allowed to be defined as perjury.

 

[elsol]

Does anyone have any doubt that the use of the crime of perjury in the Clinton case was as an attempt to "get back" at him for committing the sin of not being who the opponents wanted him to be? Did he commit perjury? That is actually beside the point...

No actually it is NOT beside the point.

Did he commit perjury? Whether someone was grinding an axe, does not take away the fact he did it. (if that's what you believe).

I'm clinton-irrelevant and on the day he looked into the camera and said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." He soured me on democrats FOREVER.

I don't particuarly care that someone has an agenda as long as they play by the rules.

He was the President of the United States and he lied on the stand. (if that's what you believe).

I'm not willing to cop to 'Oh, it was just about sex...' when he's that high.

I didn't even fucking care that she was blowing him until he lied about it. (Although... Bill... MONICA!!! You were the President of the United States! Fucking Kennedy got Marilyn and you went for Monica! Motherfucker... the line is there for you... 'Hi, wanna ride on Air Force 1?')

If Libby or Rove lied on the stand, I want them fucking crucified.

If Cloudy's cop lies on the stand, I want him crucified too!

Don't take the oath or don't answer the question, but do not lie.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Belegon]

No actually it is NOT beside the point.


Sincerely,
ElSol

ya know, I even went and bolded my point I actually want to concentrate on...and you had to go and talk about a throwaway comment at the end of my post.

my fault. I should have left that comment out.

the point is not whether or not resisting arrest is a crime. the point is that the use of extreme force creates an emotional reaction that is not appropriate for use in comparison to the original metaphor.

that's what I've been trying to say this whole time. I feel that talking about shooting at cops when Min was talking about the misuse of the charge resisting arrest was making it an emotional issue in a way that was way overblown. clear?

 

[ffreak]

OK, let me roll back to the original issue being discussed: the indictment against Libby and perjury.

Three of the counts against him are for lying to the Grand Jury while under oath. OK, those are valid perjury charges and now the prosecutor will have to prove to a jury that Libby knew he was lying (as opposed to stating what he thought was the truth - presumably the Grand Jury thought there was sufficient evidence that he lied and handed down the indictments accordingly).

The other two are for making a false statement to the FBI - he wasn't under oath, so it's not perjury. If an FBI agent wanted to talk to you about anything, wouldn't you be a little nervous? Who knows where such a conversation could go and if you don't give them what they're looking for, I would think that you'd really feel like you're skating on thin ice. But we go right back to the question of what Libby might have limited in his conversation (or should have) because of security clearance issues.