If possible I’d like to stay away from the background and specifics of each case, since my point here is that both men have been indicted on the charges of perjury, obstruction, and lying under oath.
What I don’t like, is that it occurs to me that all someone has to do, is get their enemy to speak under oath. I’m convinced that if asked enough, or the right, questions any one of use could be found guilty of perjury or obstruction, as long as we’re under oath.
Think about the last time a cop pulled you over and asked you questions—were you ENTIRELY truthful? Truthful to the point that if put under investigation 100% of your story would check out? It seems that both of the above mentioned situations involve that 0.01% of their story that didn’t quite check out.
I agree that perjury and obstruction are criminal offences, and that for the most part they need to be punishable. But this seems like a bit of a Catch 22, since I don’t believe that anyone’s story would checkout 100% and thus make them guilty of a much larger crime.
When you speak to a cop on the side of the road, you are not under oath though he may write what you say on a Supporting Deposition.
“What speed were you going, son?” “Uh, 65.” “My radar says 85.” The crime is speeding, not lying.
With an investigation at the highest levels of government, honest and truthful cooperation is quite simply required and we cannot expect anything less. If a government official testifying before a grand jury under oath cannot render a story that checks out, then he has committed one crime, possibly two, and is at the very least incompetent for getting caught.
No, there is just a lot of meaningless quibbling going on as an attempt to distract from the issue.
Clinton was impeached in accordance with the Constitution. The Constitution is the highest law in the US. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presided over the proceedings. You want to play games with terminology, that’s your problem.
In both cases, the men in question had, or may have, lied quite deliberately under oath. And, when you take an oath in a court of law or before Congress, it’s not an underhanded trick to try and catch you in a misstatement.
According to senators like Kay Bailey Hutchison, perjury, even if it’s a lie about a personal matter in a civil lawsuit, is practically an unforgiveable crime and a threat to our entire judicial system. At least, that’s what she said in 1999. Last Sunday, on the other hand, she called perjury and obstruction of justice “technicalities”, so I guess she’s changed her mind.
Okay, sorry, I was under the impression that Clinton would have been indicted, found guilty of perjury, and subsequently impeached. Turns out he was simply impeached and later aquitted.
The point still remains though, that in both cases the crime was lying under oath. And I agree that is a crime and should be punished.
From what I’ve learned watching Law and Order, that is a crime. Lying to police/FBI/Grand Jury is a crime and is either perjury or obstruction.
So to reiterate, what I don’t like about these situations (including the speeding ticket) is that is seems the shear act of being questioned will make someone a criminal–if someone watched to investigate. I do realize that this doesn’t necessarily need to be the case, that ideally you could tell the truth.
My premise here is that once someone has said something–anything–under oath, a sufficient investigation could find an error or ommission and thus make you a criminal. Notice there, that simply telling the truth may not be enough since what you don’t say could be construed to be intentionally misleading.
Does that mean you’re going to *start * addressing the issue now?
To wit, it ain’t a Catch-22 if the false statements are about the criminal act being investigated. Fitzgerald is not done yet; wait and see what the charges of perjury are actually about. That wasn’t the case for Clinton, even allowing for the OP’s rhetorically-useful fudging of the meaning of words. Shodan would prefer to call that “quibbling”, but that’s what the substance of a charge a motivated prosecutor could bring might entirely consist of, right?
There is a real simple way to avoid that. Don’t lie under oath. Really, that’s all there is to it.
Shodan, for the purposes of this discussion, impeachment may be roughly equivilant to indictment. I hope you do not believe it is that way in real life. Impeachment is solely for the purpose of removing an office-holder from office.
Law and Order aside, to the best of my knowledge, one is not under Oath as one has not been read his Miranda rights when being interrogated by a roadside cop. The words I say cannot be used against me in this case, even if they are accurately written down in the cop’s Supporting Deposition. Also, when one is discussing the speed one thinks one was driving, one can be mistaken. It’s not a lie but an error.
I have not read the particulars of any perjury or obstruction indictments lately but I am fairly certain the burden is that this is done knowingly and wilfully, in violation of an Oath that is taken.
It is perhaps not crucial to the thread, but it is important to note that the Chief Justice presided in the Senate, for the convivtion stage. Even though it is called that, it was simply to remove the president from office. There was no criminal charge. The House of Represntatives voted to impeach Clinton. They heard legal rationales why they should do so, but did not really need them. If they decided he had committed “high crimes and misdemeanors,” then as far as the process was concerned, he had, and the impeachment would have been submitted to the Senate.
I tend to agree. The investigation was about determining if a criminal breach of national security occurred, and who might be involved in such a breach. With no such charges levelled, it seems safte to say that no criminal breach of national security was committed. Instead, the crime here is in giving false statements to the Grand Jury (I presume Fitzgerald is alleging the coverups were deliberate) about the sources of the information Libby shared with reporters. My guess is Libby sought to avoid political embarassment to those sources.
That’s essentially all this is about. Libby committed no crime in sharing the information, and there is apparently nothing illegal about the way he got the information, or more people would be in the hotseat right now.; he just lied about where he originally got it, allegedly. The most plausible reason I can think of for him trying to mislead the G.J. is because revealing his sources would create problems of perception, which political opponents would exploit. This is a reasonable concern, if not enough of one to justify his actions on legal terms. I don’t buy the argument that he should have been completely forthcoming, given the secrecy of G.J. proceedings, because they’re not kept secret. That is the fault of the lawyers and others with a vested interest in leaks, not those under investigation.
But there you have it: It’s not the crime (as it would appear there was no crime committed), it’s the coverup, once again. Find something suspicious, put a Special Prosecutor on the case, and, quite likely, the S.P. will eventually stumble into sensitive territory, even if that territory had nothing to do with the original intent of the investigation. Somebody is bound to fib about something, and then you can nail them with charges of perjury. It happened to Clinton, and now it’s happening to Libby. In the future it may happen to Rove, and others. Yeah, technically they broke the law; but this is not a very satisfying indictment, if you ask me. It’s just the increasing criminalization of realpolitics. I suppose some would view that as a good thing, but I’m realistic enough to know that politicians need some secrets, because public perception can be manipulated in unscrupulous ways. No party is above exploiting doubt and inuendo to score cheap points in the court of public oppinion. The Democrats are going to have a field day with this. And just as the Republicans are now paying for the Starr investigation, the Democrats will pay in the future for the hay they make out of this one. Rinse, repeat.
This is where I disagree, I don’t believe that’s all there is to it. As I’ve mentioned, there is also the problem of omission and what might been seen as misleading testemony–dispite every word being “true.” I feel that a sufficient investigation of someone’s testimony will necessarily show either perjury or obstruction (given that they’ve given sufficient testemony). So it occurs me that that once you can get someone under oath or questioned by the authorities you’ve won.
I should say again that I am not a lawyer and have to legal experience. But to clearify, you are under oath when you are sworn in, such as in a court. From what I understand, it is also a crime to lie or mislead the authorities, such as cops or FBI, even if you are not under oath. The former would be purjury, where as the latter would be obstruction.
That may be the case as far as Libby is concerned; but Fitzgerald hasn’t closed up shop and additional indictments may be forthcoming; especially for “Official A”.