On Sunday, Republicans appeared to be preparing to blunt the impact of any charges. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas, speaking on the NBC news program “Meet the Press,” compared the leak investigation with the case of Martha Stewart and her stock sale, “where they couldn’t find a crime and they indict on something that she said about something that wasn’t a crime.”
Ms. Hutchison said she hoped “that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn’t indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars.”
I assume that all the conservatives on this forum who are currently bashing Clinton, yet again, will also bash Hutchison for her views on the triviality of perjury. Right?
Of course they won’t. It a party thing. Will you now slam Clinton and be as hard on him for his perjury?
I never defended him for perjury. You must be mistaking me for some other partisan hack.
What’s amazing about Hutchison’s trivialization of perjury is that she completely ignores the notion that perjury and obstruction of justice are the very things which corrupt and destroy the justice system. It allows the system to prosecute people who have at least partially concealed information of their wrongdoing, and make that itself an offense. Without it, I think you would be seriously damaging the foundation of the criminal justice system. But then again.
Obviously Clinton perjured himself, which was a bad thing.
However, can you answer this question: How exactly did Whitewater and an investigation of a bad land deal get morphed into a situation where Bill Clinton is being asked about his personal sexual relations? And should he even have been asked this question, which seemed apropos of nothing?
I totally agree. Perjury is always bad and should always be prosecuted. Another example is the Travelgate case. Independent Counsel Robert Ray in Oct. 2000 concluded that Hillary Clinton had testified falsely in the Travelgate investigation:
*“The overwhelming evidence establishes that she played a role in the decision to fire the employees and provided input into that decision,” said Ray in his final report. “Thus, her statement to the contrary under oath was factually false.” *
I’d respond to her by saying of course there will be an indictment that says something happened. These guys seem to have lied to investigators obstructing justice and committing perjury. And last I checked perjury wasn’t a technicality. Perjury by definition is a crime.
It should be prosecuted much more often particularly where our politicians are concerned as they feel they are ‘above the law’.
Both Clintons were shown to have committed perjury and now it looks like Rove and Libby have done it too. In my opinion all four of them should have been or should be prosecuted for their crimes.
I assume that all the conservatives on this forum who are currently bashing Clinton, yet again, will also bash Hutchison for her views on the triviality of perjury. Right?
Umm… Sure. I’ll take that stand. If Rove committed Perjury, he should be prosecuted for it. No question. Perjury is perjury, no matter which side of the political aisle it’s on.
One could, of course get into all sorts of gray areas about whether or not he lied, and to whom and under what conditions he did so, to question whether it was, in fact perjury, but at this time I don’t have enough information to come down for sure one way or the other.
Just to stir the waters, is there a difference between:
Rove: “I don’t remember meeting with so-and-so.” – later: “Oh yes, I do remember meeting with him.”
Again, there’s way to much I don’t know about the circumstances of the Rove case for me to make a judgement. My certainty of Clinton’s case stems ONLY from my greater familiarity with the circumstances. NOT any political preferences.
*In his 1998 testimony, the former president said, “When I was alone with Ms. Lewinsky on certain occasions in early 1996 and once in early 1997, I engaged in conduct that was wrong.” *
That timeline would have put the start of the affair after Lewinsky had completed her White House internship and had taken a staff job.
But on page 773 of his book, “My Life,” Clinton said, “During the government shutdown in late 1995, when very few people were allowed to come to work in the White House and those who were there were working late, I’d had an inappropriate encounter with Monica Lewinsky and would do so again on other occasions between November and April, when she left the White House for the Pentagon.”
“For the next 10 months, I didn’t see her, although we talked on the phone from time to time,” he said.
So he admitted an affair, just “fudged” the dates.
Just to stir the waters, is there a difference between:
Clinton: “I. Did. Not. Have. Sexual. Relations. With. That. Woman” – later: “(sob) I’m sorry. (sob) I lied about that. (sob)” Questions unrelated to the Paula Jones case and certainly unrelated to his function in the government
Rove: “I don’t remember meeting with so-and-so.” – later: “Oh yes, I do remember meeting with him.”Questions relating to how he and Libby revealed the identity of an undercover CIA agent to gain political capital
Jan. 17 Question So the record is completely clear, have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined … by the court? Answer I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I’ve never had an affair with her. Question She says this, “I have never had a sexual relationship with the president, he did not propose that we have a sexual relationship, he did not offer me employment or other benefits in exchange for a sexual relationship, he did not deny me employment or other benefits for rejecting a sexual relationship.” Is that a true and accurate statement as far as you know it? Answer That is absolutely true. Aug. 17
Clinton said the two had “inappropriate intimate contact” but not sexual relations. He testified that “any person, reasonable person” would recognize that oral sex performed on the person being questioned “falls outside the definition” of sexual relations provided by lawyers for Clinton’s testimony in the Paula Jones case. In addition, Clinton testified that the terms “sexual affair,” “sexual relationship” and “sexual relations” necessarily require sexual intercourse and that he had not engaged in intercourse with Lewinsky and therefore he had not committed perjury Jan. 17.
PERJURY - When a person, having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the U.S. authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; 18 USC
In order for a person to be found guilty of perjury the government must prove: the person testified under oath before ; at least one particular statement was false; and the person knew at the time the testimony was false.
The testimony of one witness is not enough to support a finding that the testimony was false. There must be additional evidence, either the testimony of another person or other evidence, which tends to support the testimony of falsity. The other evidence, standing alone, need not convince that the testimony was false, but all the evidence on the subject must do so.
Seems to be a four-part test. It needs to be (1) made under oath; (2) material (in other words something bearing on the outcome of the issue); (3) willfull (in other words, not an just an oversight); and, (4) supported by more evidence than just one witness.
Questions relating to how he and Libby revealed the identity of an undercover CIA agent to gain political capital
Who, it was proven, was already “outed.” So what?
Nonsense, and we’ve already been over this. The CIA *suspected *that Ames had leaked her name to the Russians, but her identity wasn’t publically known. Rove/Libby’s leak not only exposed her, but also revealed the “company” she worked for prior to being reassigned (supposedly to the State Dept.) as a CIA front.
