I disagree. Perjury is only as important as what’s being lied about. Not all lying is equal just like not all theft is equal.
No. I am not basing my statement on a lack of conviction. It is my contention that a.) the question was not material and therefore could not elicit a perjurous answer regardless of whether the answer was truthful and b.) he did not technically lie under oath in any case. The question was phrased in such a way that “no” was a technically truthful answer. You can’t say it’s perjurous just because a witness fails to volunteer information he wasn’t asked about.
My guy was innocent, for one thing and for another the circumstances just don’t bear any comparison. Failing to volunteer information about an immaterial blowjob during a deposition for a meritless, politically motivated civil lawsuit does not bear comparison to what’s currently going on in the Justice Department.
But here’s one example. The definition that Clinton was supposedly scrupulously observing was “contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of a person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.”
Monica testified that Clinton touched her breasts.
That was specifically covered by the definition.
And how about the “were you ever alone with her?” / “I don’t recall.”
Since he knew precisely what he had done with her, he KNEW he had been alone with her, and saying he didn’t recall was a lie.
Why do you think he wasn’t convicted of perjury, Bricker? It was obviously a lie, but could they prove it was a lie? And did it meet all standard for perjury? I’m curious about your opinion.
Where was the conviction? Same place as the charge? Neevr-Never Land? :dubious:
Oooh, those legal technicalities … Mighty inconvenient sometimes, aren’t they?
We expect the head of the Department of Justice to uphold justice, to serve the Constitution rather than the President. We’ve known all along he hasn’t teen doing that. But you’ve been defending him right up until the point where applying the Clinton Did It Too standard, where the *letter * of the law begins to be infringed long after the spirit of the law has been beaten and left to die on the side of the road, finally no longer lets you ignore it. You congratulate yourself for lack of hypocrisy only because you apply a sufficiently narrow, bloodless, tehcnical, justice-flouting standard rather than a moral-principle standard. Don’t be miffed at being called on it.
How’s that “restoring honor and dignity to the White House” stuff workin’ ouit for youse guys lately? Ain’t it amazin’ how saying “Clinton did it too” is now *supporting * your guy? :rolleyes:
I think his agreement to surrender his law license as punishment was considered sufficient. It was obviously a lie, and it did meet the standard for perjury.
Do you have some proof that Gonzales lied? He denies it.
I am willing to admit, though, that even though there’s no proof Gonzales lied, it’s pretty obvious to me that he did.
It’s at least as obvious that Clinton lied. Monica testified that he touched her breasts. I believe her, since that version makes sense to me, and Clinton’s denial would have him sitting there unmoving while she touched him. Possible, yes. Not very likely.
Just like it’s possible, but not very likely, that Gonzales is telling the truth.
Grand Jury.
And your idea that the deposition questions weren’t material is wrong. In fact, the standard for questions in a deposition are LOOSER than what might be allowed at trial. And the deponent commits perjury if he lies.
Bricker is scrupulously applying the same moral standards to politicians whose views he supports and to politicians whose views he opposes. Maybe it wasn’t difficult; maybe his moral code is so absolute that it is a slam-dunk for him.
It was difficult for me to admit that Clinton committed perjury. Perhaps I was projecting my experience on Bricker.
On reviewing the rest of the thread, I see no way any reasonable person cannot accept that Clinton committed perjury. Mind you, I do not believe - given the case, and given the circumstances - that it merited impeachment, but still, he did. Surrending his law license was probably an appropriate punishment.
This is why I find the right so distasteful. When my guy lies about a blowjob that had nothing to do with the reason for the investigation against him, you expect everyone to treat him like your guy, who’s lying about a plot to overthrow a department of the government in order to prevent investigations of voter fraud and election rigging.
And you’re calling US the hypocrites! Jesus, man, think about what you’re saying. Do you really hold the crimes that it appears Gonzo committed and the lie about the blowjob to the same standard? Does severity of the crime mean nothing to you?
I have a hard time believing that Bricker personally buys his own bullshit. He assumes his Lawyer Persona for the SDMB, and it’s kind of like arguing with a robot. Technically correct, but cold, calculating, and heartless nonetheless.
Let’s pretend for a moment that Gonzales was telling the truth, the fact that he put on such a pisspoor performance for the hearing says to me that he’s unfit for the job. If you’re the top lawyer in the land, and are going to be handling (in one form or another) some of the most important cases before the highest courts, then you’d goddamned well better be able to acquit yourself with distinction. Gonzales sat in front of a group of senators, many of whom are former prosecutors, and came off like a drooling idiot. If that’s the best he can manage, then how can we trust any decision the man makes? Even his selection of attorney to argue a case in court is questionable.
Nor aught so good but strain’d from that fair use, revolts from true birth, stumbling on abuse: Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied; And vice sometimes by action dignified.
It appears that it was data mining that was the contentious issue back in 2004.
Assuming this is true, I don’t see how a perjury charge could stick for this particular issue. It does seem that AG was being deliberately evasive, and it does seem that Mueller was trying to get Jackson-Lee to delve deeper. I think the perjury charge has a much better chance of sticking over the Attorney firings than this testimony. And while AG has become so ineffective that he really should resign, I just don’t see that happening. Not yet.
Where do you see *morality * in there? :dubious: He’s making a show of applying the same *narrowly technical * standards, and merely equating them with moral ones. Don’t fall for it. When, in fact, do we ever see him draw a distinction between the letter and spirit of the law, or even acknowledge that there is such a distinct thing as the spirit of the law at all?
Misleading statements under oath /= perjury. Been over that many times.
Given that it was purely a symbolic act, unlike the political effort using the force of the law contrary to its spirit to find something to get him for, you’re probably right.
You can choose to believe it or not, but I think it offers an explanation to an otherwise confusing situation. Gonzales was technically correct in his answer, although his statement was misleading. Mueller was also correct, and that explains why he was reluctant to identify the program as the TSP, and kept referring to “an NSA program”. Also,t he data mining program was “much discussed” in the media.
When Gingrich, the primary architect of the partisan poison that has governed GOP conduct in Congress in recent years, thinks something is more important than what’s good for the Republicans and bad for the Democrats, better pay attention. Of course, he’d say the same thing under his usual partisan standard, too.