Perjury

[elsol]

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?

Okay... how about I underblow it...

How about if a 250 lb man punches a 160 lb female cop in the face in the process of 'resisting arrest' and breaks nearly every bone in her face, hospitilizing her for three months? (Yes, it happened... on one of those 'Police Greatest Chases' shows... female cop went to arrest and he cold-cocked her. It wasn't even a hard punch, no pull-back, no hip action.)

If that cop had been cloudy's 300 lb'er, it would have annoyed him.

Had the woman blocked it and pounded him with the stick it would have been put down to 'resisting arrest'?

The amount of damage done or the reason the charge is leveled doesn't make it any less 'resisting arrest'.

And since when on THIS forum are we not allowed to overblow?

I'm quite fond of looking at these black/white issues that people don't say are black/white and testing the extremes.

It's why I'm moderate... I don't like what happens when I push reasonable 'arguments' in one circumstance out to the foreseeable extreme.

Sincerely,
ElSOl

 

[elsol]

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.

Good luck proving someone knew they 'lied'....

Have you seen the White House indictments list on msn.com

I was like 'Does anybody EVER get convicted of anything in this country?'

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[mack_the_knife]

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?

If he purjured himself, then he deserves the full weight of the law to descend upon his head. Now, everyone settle down until the trial, nothing to see here.

 

[ffreak]

Now, everyone settle down until the trial, nothing to see here.

And you say that with the AV you're using. There has to be a story in there.

Actually, this was fun. Kind of like having our own news debate show for a bit.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Heard a couple of high-end lawyers discussing the charges against Libby on the radio. According to them, perjury and obstructing justice are the charges you bring when you really don't have anything else sewn up.

It doesn't take much. You go before the grand jury once and tell them you ate at McDonald's. Then you go back and tell them you made a mistake and that you'd actually eaten at Burger King, and you're screwed.

You didn't mention that you had coffee at Starbuck's too, Mr. Jones. That's obstruction of justice.

We don't know for sure, but the best bets are that Libby got his stories wrong about who he told what when. Were those intentional lies? Or honest misremembering? Doesn't matter at this point. That's what the trial will be about. All we know is that there were grounds for bringing charges of perjury. There's suspicion about the motivation behind his mistakes.

And anyone who thinks that cops don't lie, that they don't fabricate or plant evidence, or frame people, or make mistakes and try to cover them up, has almost certainly never had any serious dealings with the law.

 

[BlackShanglan]

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'd argue that the problem here is the corruption and deceit of the police officer, not the existence of the crime "resisting arrest." I'd argue the same for all cases in which laws are misapplied, abused, or deceitfully applied. It's not the existence of the law that is the problem; any law is open to abuse by corrupt police officers. That doesn't, to me, suggest that those things should not be illegal.

Shanglan

 

[BlackShanglan]

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...

I disagree. Regardless of whether I like the people who investigated him or the motives for the investigation, I think it a shameful spectacle when the leader of our country cannot bring himself to answer simple, direct questions in an honest fashion. It shows an utter want of character and courage and a deceptive nature, and I think that quite the point. He had no one to blame for the results but himself, whatever he cares to say about "vast right-wing conspiracies." He was hoist on his own petard, and the only miracle is that there weren't more charges. I still think it a standing disgrace that no arrest was made when an individual went directly to Vince Foster's office on news of his death and began shredding boxes of documents. That the individual in question was the First Lady is irrelevant. There is no honest reason for those actions.

Shanglan

 

[cantdog]

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.

That, my dear woman, is exactly the power policemen have. The power to lie in a court of law and be taken seriously. They do it constantly, so far as I have been able to determine. My life has been full of such incidents. Cops, for some reason, are often petty criminals. They wouldn't apply for the job, any of them, unless they enjoyed throwing their weight around. And if they are, indeed, criminals, what better job could they have? Who the fuck is going to arrest them?

 

[cantdog]

I'd argue that the problem here is the corruption and deceit of the police officer, not the existence of the crime "resisting arrest." I'd argue the same for all cases in which laws are misapplied, abused, or deceitfully applied. It's not the existence of the law that is the problem; any law is open to abuse by corrupt police officers. That doesn't, to me, suggest that those things should not be illegal.

Shanglan

Nope. But all they have to do is lie again to beat those raps.

A corrupt cop is in a sweet spot. They know it, too. Lying about things on the stand is a whole lot easier than actually investigating. I have experience. The cop swore it was him, but it was me. He went to jail. I didn't. The cop went on to promotion and retirement with an unblemished record.

 

[thebullet]

Cops, for some reason, are often petty criminals. They wouldn't apply for the job, any of them, unless they enjoyed throwing their weight around.

Hey, Cantdog, aren't we being a wee bit cynical?

I deal with a lot of cops in my business and most of them are pretty good guys, in my experience. Sure you run up against those on power trips - those I try to avoid. But I've run into almost as many cops who are tried and true wimps, too.

I think there is a middle ground between writing the police off and deifying them. Most of them are pretty average.

Of course I knew one cop who stole pot from the evidence safe and used it to bribe local teenaged girls (and sometimes blackmail them by planting it on them) - into having sex with him. I personally was shocked. Shocked!

 

[cantdog]

I was shocked, too, at sixteen. But I have learned to accept it. An army of paramilitary thugs, police.

But don't let me stop anyone from liking 'em. They are a good thing for those in the class of Those We Help. The rest of us, in the class of Those We Prey On (termed 'scumbags' in copspeak, at least up here), know better than to call them, know better than to trust them, and certainly do not expect good things of them. I've been in both classes, myself. Cops have saved my ass when I was stranded on the road. Cops have also abandoned my ass to die in the same situation. It depends who you are. And that depends on your money.

I got money again, now, and am a homeowner. But they know I ain't rich or powerful, so there are limits. Of course, when I do my walking at night, they always stop me (maybe one in three walks) and demand ID, saying, every time, the same trite lies to justify that. It has happened twice a night, before. The lie, if you haven't been there: "[Some crime, usually a robbery] was committed [some time, not long ago], and you match the description..." If this had been true, of course, it would have been probable cause. But it's not true. It's a lie of convenience to make me produce ID.

Walking alone through the city at night, they cannot know my social class. But if I meet them at home, in my role as homeowner, there are still limits. They will not do anything for me, but at least they come when I call, and refrain from actually threatening me. I was burglarized, for example. They did not cross the sill, but stood outside the house, resolutely, even though I invited them in to investigate the scene of the crime. They wanted serial numbers from the stolen electronics. But they didn't expend any cop equipment to check fingerprints or assess the scene, as I say. I believe they only bring out the cop equipment and actually investigate only when there's money or clout involved, or else a lot of newspaper publicity. Taking the serial numbers is the total extent of the "investigation" the cops made of my burglary.

At sixteen, by the way, it was a cop beating up a woman whom I was with, in a group of four. She lived in a poor neighborhood, in a shitty apartment, so the cop knew he could beat her up all he wanted. His partner stopped us from intervening, threatening us when we objected. Such fun.

 

[Belegon]

Okay... how about I underblow it...

How about if a 250 lb man punches a 160 lb female cop in the face in the process of 'resisting arrest' and breaks nearly every bone in her face, hospitilizing her for three months? (Yes, it happened... on one of those 'Police Greatest Chases' shows... female cop went to arrest and he cold-cocked her. It wasn't even a hard punch, no pull-back, no hip action.)

If that cop had been cloudy's 300 lb'er, it would have annoyed him.

Had the woman blocked it and pounded him with the stick it would have been put down to 'resisting arrest'?

The amount of damage done or the reason the charge is leveled doesn't make it any less 'resisting arrest'.

And since when on THIS forum are we not allowed to overblow?

I'm quite fond of looking at these black/white issues that people don't say are black/white and testing the extremes.

It's why I'm moderate... I don't like what happens when I push reasonable 'arguments' in one circumstance out to the foreseeable extreme.

Sincerely,
ElSOl

oh yeah...we went from shooting cops to battered women...that's sure to evoke less emotion.


ok now, for the third time... the whole reason I ever opened my mouth on this damn thread!

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.


using images taken to extremes obscure the real issue.

I am not saying a damn thing more about Clinton or any other political figure.

but don't use cop-killing and woman battering to make your point about whether or not lying under oath should be taken as a serious crime. It is using a $100.00 bill to buy a 2 cent stick of gum.

 

[mack_the_knife]

To the Clinton defenders, he did far more than simply purjure himself (and I still say nail people for that when you catch them doing it). He subborned others to sign false afidavits and had his lawyer submit them into evidence, and other actions of highly planned deceit.

As I say, if Libby did purjure himself, then nail him to the wall. People enjoying our trust in highly placed positions within our government should be held to a much higher standard.*

Much like the side-noting about police officers. The reason we feel so upset when they abuse their authority is that we have entrusted them with that authority and normally, we respect it. When they misuse it, it is more than just the crime itself, it is additionally a violation of trust. Cops, too, should be held to a higher standard.*

*Than your 'average Joe'.

 

[Belegon]

The reason we feel so upset when they abuse their authority is that we have entrusted them with that authority and normally, we respect it. When they misuse it, it is more than just the crime itself, it is additionally a violation of trust.

well said...

 

[Huckleman2000]

It's easy enough to say "perjury is perjury, and throw the lot in jail."

But there's a pretty clear distinction between Clinton's perjury and Libby's. While Fitzgerald wasn't addressing this question directly, in answering a reporter's question about why he didn't prosecute on charges about leaking classified information or outing a CIA operative, he made a very salient point:

He could not reach a conclusion whether or not to prosecute those crimes, because these crimes of perjury and obstruction prevented him from doing so.

In contrast, Clinton's perjury didn't cover up a crime, unless you consider consensual oral sex a crime. Starr was investigating the Whitewater land deal; he got the investigation expanded to include Paula Jones' allegations of sexual harassment, and only involved Monica Lewinsky in trying to demonstrate that he had sex with someone else who happened to be somewhere below him in the reporting structure of his administration. Monica never claimed she was sexually harassed, and didn't accuse Clinton of a crime. If he had told the truth about the affair, it would have just been a huge embarrassment for all concerned, but it wouldn't have been a crime.

In Libby's case, Fitzgerald's investigation of the crime of damaging national security was directly impeded by the refusal of Libby, and possibly others, to tell the truth to the investigators.

 

[Huckleman2000]

To the Clinton defenders, he did far more than simply purjure himself (and I still say nail people for that when you catch them doing it). He subborned others to sign false afidavits and had his lawyer submit them into evidence, and other actions of highly planned deceit.
...

Again, he wasn't covering up a crime, he was covering up a blowjob.

I'm not saying it was the right thing to do; I'm saying that there's a qualitative difference between trying to cover up a blowjob and trying to cover up the outing of a CIA operative as part of a broader operation to take the country to war under dubious pretense.

 

[elsol]

Much like the side-noting about police officers. The reason we feel so upset when they abuse their authority is that we have entrusted them with that authority and normally, we respect it. When they misuse it, it is more than just the crime itself, it is additionally a violation of trust. Cops, too, should be held to a higher standard.*

I disagree... no one should be held to a 'higher standard'. Inevitably that 'higher standard' makes people look up to them. People start making excuses for them.

If we can do the 'higher standard' without the other stuff, then okay.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[mack_the_knife]

Again, he wasn't covering up a crime, he was covering up a blowjob.

I'm not saying it was the right thing to do; I'm saying that there's a qualitative difference between trying to cover up a blowjob and trying to cover up the outing of a CIA operative as part of a broader operation to take the country to war under dubious pretense.

Why a person is on the stand is a moot point. Once they swear (yadda yadda) they are obliged to utter the truth. I simply point out that Clinton not only performed simple purjury, but additionally submitted falsified documents to further that lie. I realize what Libby might have done could be far worse (assuming she even qualified for protection under that particular act), but that doesn't change the nature of purjury.

 

[elsol]

Again, he wasn't covering up a crime, he was covering up a blowjob.

I'm not saying it was the right thing to do; I'm saying that there's a qualitative difference between trying to cover up a blowjob and trying to cover up the outing of a CIA operative as part of a broader operation to take the country to war under dubious pretense.

But there's a pretty clear distinction between Clinton's perjury and Libby's.

Thank you for clarifying it.

I will not accept that there is a qualitative difference in their acts of perjury.

I will accept that there is a qualitative difference in the circumstances of the perjury.

They both committed perjury. (Allegedly).

Libby may also be guilty of treason. (allegedly).

Clinton was guilty of... MONICA!!! Bill! Bill! Bill! MONICA! Come on, guy! I've gotten better ass as a bus boy!

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[mack_the_knife]

I disagree... no one should be held to a 'higher standard'. Inevitably that 'higher standard' makes people look up to them. People start making excuses for them.

If we can do the 'higher standard' without the other stuff, then okay.

Sincerely,
ElSol

With power comes responsibility.

 

[elsol]

With power comes responsibility.

No.

With responsibility comes responsibility.

The power thing is BS; I'm on the side of 'with power comes the ability to enforce doing whatever the fuck you want'.

The President didn't accept power... he accepted responsibility.

I don't vote for Candidate A because I think he'll handle the 'power' better... I vote for him because I think he'll do a good job, sometimes I only vote for him because I think he'll do a better job than Candidate B.

Sicnerely,
ElSol

 

[Boxlicker101]

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.

In the case of Clinton, it WAS the court's business. He was accused by Paula Jones of sexual harassment while he was governor of Arkansas and he denied it, and denied, under oath, ever having sex with any government employee. Since that was a lie, he had committed perjury.

 

[Subo97]

I love the quibbling. I love to see my right wing friends hoisted on their own petard.

Ultimately it's the court of public opinion that will matter. The rest is just for lawyers to make money. Bill Clinton lied to cover up a blowjob, Libby, Rove, Cheyney and bush lied to make war. Indictments in court don't matter. The indictments of History do.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I love the quibbling. I love to see my right wing friends hoisted on their own petard.

Ultimately it's the court of public opinion that will matter. The rest is just for lawyers to make money. Bill Clinton lied to cover up a blowjob, Libby, Rove, Cheyney and bush lied to make war. Indictments in court don't matter. The indictments of History do.

It's unlikely that anybody will go to prison and do any hard time over this. Maybe 30 days in Club Fed and a fine. I don't know that the principals care all that much about how they will be viewed by history. I think they are more concerned with how they are seen by their present associates.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I doubt this even ends up as a blip on the screen as far as history is concerned. Unless Fitzgerald grows some balls and tries to prosecute them for the real crime, which is treason. this qualifies as both overt and covert treason and covert treason is the only crime that carries a mandantory punishment. It's death by hanging. It wouldmake a blip on the screen of history, should they be convicted, since we've outlawed hanging.

Historians pay attention to such minutae, but it's rare to find even a specialist who is up on all the scandals of a particular president's term.