It would only be obstruction if I withheld evidence my cooperation was necessary to divulge. And I wasn’t talking about what goes on in court with this sidebar, because the shoulder of a highway is not a court of law.
In the case of speeding, as I maintain, it hardly matters how much the supposition one makes in answering deviates from the equipment a cop uses to measure my speed. Often, if you answer correctly and are concilliatory a cop, on an individual basis, will do what he can to reduce the charge that goes on your ticket. And of course, if you blatantly lie in his face, he may notice your registration or other issues that he can bust you for. But none of this ever translates into anything legally meaningful because the shoulder is not a court and one is not under oath there.
As much as I understand where the OP is coming from, our justice system could not opperate if people could lie with impunity during a criminal investigation.
One of these days some politician is going to have the spine to say one of the following (as appropriate) when placed in that kind of situation, and we’re going to applaud it when it happens:
• “I’m not going to answer that question. Yes, well, I don’t give a rat’s ass if you do hold me in contempt, I’m not answering the damn question. 'Taint none of your business. Next?”
• “Yes. Yes I said that, yes I did that. Umm, yeah, I was wrong. I’m not wrong often, I’m good at what I do, but I was wrong on that one. If you want a perfect politician elected to this office, you’ll be waiting a long long time. Here’s where we’re going to undo the damage done by me being wrong.”
• “No. Those are very serious charges. If someone actually did those things, I would want them held accountable, and it is right to be concerned that such a thing might have happened. My accusers are acting exactly as I would, and they are honorably concerned here. Meanwhile, again because they are serious charges, it is important to be sure you’re right before deciding that someone is guilty of having done such a thing. I did not.”
I agree, to an extent. However, our justice system clearly can be utilized to troll for controversy and extend its reach as far as it deems fit. The Starr investigation was a perfect example of the abuses of the office of Special Prosecutor. So, unfortunately, I can easily understand the difficult position politicians are placed in when a Special Prosecutor can ask them about virtually anything even remotely connected to an investigation, and the investigated must speak with perfect candor. As the secrecy of the proceedings is obviously not maintained, it is essentially impossible to fight politics with politics when one is under even the most politically-motivated investigation.
You’re right, you are not under oath on the side of the road, and I said that already. But lying to a cop (as far as I know) is obstruction–a crime. To carry with the speeding ticket analogy, you the driver and not under oath, nor do you have to admit anything that may incriminate you, and for that matter you do not even need to answer any questions.
But consider the passenger. If the passenger lies to the officer that is a crime of obstruction if the answers given are misleading and if someone wanted to prosecute. The passenger is not under oath, but is expected to cooperate with authorities in an on going investigation. So now the passener, but simple fact of being questioned, could be considered a criminal–since it is my belief that sufficient investigation will show obstruction.
As Loopydude said, this trend is going to continue and escalate and that’s what I don’t like about the Libby/Clinton situations. As long as you can get someone questioned, you can find an indictable offence. I don’t care about Libby or Clinton, but they are both examples of the same problem.
My fear is that this abuse of the perjury charge will start to weaken the investigation process of real crimes. I can’t imagine why any politician would ever allow themselves to be put under oath. And I think we’ll start to see a trend where politicians are going to have to some how protect themselves when giving any sort of deposition. Since now every word ever spoken under oath is potentially damaging and criminal–if investigated sufficiently. I see this as only getting worse.
It is sort of amusing, though, to look at the incredible lengths people will go through to cover up “legal” activity when questioned by authorities. Seriously, these are not country bumpkins, these are lawyers, Martha Stewart was a stock broker, surely they know the difference between legal actions and illegal ones. Yet they lie under oath/to investigators (a crime in and of itself) to cover up their completely legal actions. Seems a bit odd, no?
Also the idea that someone is “bound” to lie at some point, is nonsense. Clinton’s statements were not accidental, he knew very well what his relationship with Lewinsky consisted of, and chose deliberately to make the statements he did about it. It’s not like he actually thought that she didn’t give him a blowjob. Martha Stewart knew very well what she did and didn’t talk about with her broker, and chose deliberately to be less than truthful about it. I don’t know what Libby did or didn’t say, but I kind of suspect he knew damn well what he was doing when he said it.
To be clear, I fully agree that we need purjury and obstruction charges and the those that lie under oath or obstruct justice are criminals and should be charged to the fullest extent of the law. Our criminal system absolutely must hold people acountable for what they say and must depend the truth.
But we’re now dealing with a secondary issue of investigators trolling for a crime. Waiting for someone to testify under oath, and then investigate the hell out of what they said until a crime is found. That sort of investigation is going to undermine the very nature of our criminal system.
The result, as I see it, is that politicians are going to stop cooperating or giving any information [to the best of their legal ability]. We’ll see all testimony being given through a team of lawyers, with questions screened and scrutinized before hand. A situation that will errode the ability to investigate real crimes.
I see nothing wrong with continuing investigations of public figures. It’s what the GAO does. Government accountability is a serious issue and if people aren’t giving straight answers, they’re not fit to lead.
In the U.S. our nuclear arsenal has something called PRP, Personnel Reliability Program. The program is a set of psychological and organizational tests; each year to make sure everybody stewarding this arsenal is on the ball. Each year, between 2.5% and 5.0% of previously PRP Certified individuals have been decertified, that is, deemed unsuitable for nuclear weapons related activities.*
Thus I have no problems with trolling our leaders. I think it might improve things.
[see Herbert L. Abrams’ “Human Reliability and Safety In The Handling of Nuclear Weapons” from Science and Global Security, vol. 2 (1991), p. 334]
Fitzgerald wasn’t trolling for a crime. Everything was evidently going well until Libby lied. At that point, Fitzgerald had no choice but to pursue Libby’s lies in order to do his(Fitzgerald’s) job. If, in pursuing LIbby’s lies, poor Mr. Libby got nailed, then that’s the breaks.
In that case, Law and Order has no idea what it’s talking about. A policeman or an F.B.I. agent cannot put you under oath. Nothing you say to them is sworn. However, whatever you do say “can and will be used against you in a court of law.” So, lying now might cause problems for you later. You’re always better off not talking to the police at all.
Nope. There isn’t any evidence that he was trolling for a crime. As you said, if Libby had just told the truth to begin with, he’d be in the clear.
You don’t think that is already happening as much as it can? But no, government officials will have to answer themselves, not thru their lawyers. Let them try to obfuscate with hard-ass prosecutors like Fitzy-- he will rip them to shreds.
I agree, and you are absolutely right. In all of these cases the person did lie under oath, and should be prosecuted. But that’s not my point here.
What concerns me is the bigger picture. Having examined the Clinton situation, what do you suppose he would do if he had the opportunity to give that testemony again–knowing the result (or Libby or Martha). If Libby could go back in time, would he ever go before a Grand Jury?
There is a bigger issue surrounding this, and I fear there is a growing trend to abuse the purjury charge, and that will have consequences. My inane prediction is that it will lead to legal-stonewalling where no one even remotely involved we go under oath, ever again.
Consider the future of this Libby indictment: People will be called to testify (gasp maybe even the President) but why would they? We’re at the point where being in contempt may be better than testifying at all.
Do you honestly believe the President (or VP) could testify without it being invested to death? I believe that every single word they say will be scrutinized and checked to until perjury can be alledged. I fear that simply telling the truth isn’t enough to avoid the charge (note that telling the truth may make you innocent, it won’t let you avoid the charge).
All of these three could very simply have told the truth to the investigators. It appears that you think the only choice is one prison sentence or a different prison sentence. All of these big perjury cases involve people who deliberately lied. There was no “simply telling the truth” not being good enough, these people (allegedly with Libby, of course) knew 100% that their testimony was not accurate.
In each case, it’s probable that very little would have happened to them if they had been truthful.
A relevant quote from Woody Woodpecker, after tragedy befalls him while trying to uncover buried treasure:
I would hope that in your real life, you do not consider this statement:
to be true. 'Cause it’s not. As I said, for the purposes of this thread, they may be considered to be analogous, but they’re not the same thing at all.
It’s too bad people insist that this is somehow more complicated. Libby impeded the investigation. He doesn’t get an excuse because his testimony might have been leaked and because it might’ve looked bad for his boss. This probably looks worse for his boss than it would’ve if he’d just admitted he heard it from Cheney - and of course, it leaked out that he’d heard from Cheney anyway, so if his intention was to protect the VP, he accomplished zip in any case. Why should he be rewarded with a free pass for breaking a law he felt was unimportant?
This shows all the signs of turning into your run of the mill, pretty standard around here, shouting match. None the less, fools jump in where angels…
Indictment is a formal deceleration that the subject is accused of a specific criminal act or acts as defined in the statutes of the jurisdiction. In the Federal system it is issued on the vote of 12 members of a grand jury of, I think, 20 randomly selected people. It declares no more that the grand jury by a majority of no less than 12 has concluded that there is ample evidence to provide reasonable cause to believe that the named defendant did the listed bad act in a specified manner. It defines the things the prosecutor must persuade a petty jury ( the classic criminal trial jury composed of 12 of the defendants peers) beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant did. In form, if the requisite unanimous trial jury fails then the defendant is acquitted and forever free from loss of life, liberty or property because of the accusation contained in the indictment. That is no always true, see the case of OJ Simpson, who every reasonable, thinking and aware person thinks is guilty as hell, but has possibly been deprived of property through civil proceedings and the federal prosecution of racist murderers in Mississippi after they had been acquitted by juries in state proceedings. The whole grand jury thing is a constrained, narrow process with narrow definitions, elaborate and arcane procedures and a known and predictable course. Among other things both the grand jurors and petty jurors are to be open minded and are to form their judgements base only on what is presented to them withing the grand jury proceedings or the trial.
Impeachment, or the other hand is a political process, nothing more and nothing less. It is subject to all the ills of a political process to include personal ambition, partisan rancor, party discipline and secret agenda.
Do not insult my intelligence by saying that impeachment, that is, the passage of a bill of impeachment by a bare majority of the members of the House of Representatives then present and voting, is equivalent to and indictment of a grand jury, functionally, morally or intellectually. To argue from that position is simple disingenuous. My friends who take that position place themselves in a false position, without even considering the differences between a misrepresentation about an adulterous liaison and a misrepresentation about a disclosure for political advantage which incidentally injures the national security. Two different animals.