१४ जून, २००७
Straight to prison for Libby?
The judge refused to allow him to remain free pending his appeal. What will Bush do, if he's lost the option of waiting until after the 2008 election to pardon Libby?
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
७१ टिप्पण्या:
Whatever Bush chooses, you can be sure that it's all part of the neo-con Rovian plot to enrich Dick Cheney.
"What Digby said".
We're in for a real howl storm of righteous, manufactured, indignation.
I say "Don't do the crimes if you can't do the time."
Is that unusual Ann? To deny bail during appeal?
Liars get what liars get. Pat Buchanan just asked a very interesting question on MSNBC..."why didn't he tell the truth?"
Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass go. Just collect as much as you can for your legal defense fund.
1998: If there is no underlying crime, it is Orwellian to put someone in jail testifying about real estate scams or blowjobs for their testimony if that testimony is deemed false.
2007: The lack of underlying crimes does not matter. It is vital to justice, comrades, that liars and the lying liars who tell lies suffer punishment for giving testimony deemed false by a prosecutor.
What about the overlying crime? Think our justice system could function long if people were allowed to lie to Grand Juries?
Result aside, I think that the judge in the case is acting like a grade-A world class prick.
Alpha -- LAW SCHOOL 101. Juries and grand juries are finders of fact. Their job is to determine who is telling the truth and what the truth is.
If everyone told the truth in litigation all the time, and if all facts could be known with certainty, there would be no need whatsoever for a jury.
People lie to juries all the time, every day. A large role of a jury is to decide when this is happening.
It is true that there are penalties for lying under oath. However, this is because there are criminal and civil issues underlying the testimony deemed important by the court.
If there are no criminal and civil issues, and no one can deny that there are were none here, people ought to be free to lie with abandon, at least insofar as their liberty and their property is concerned.
Alphaliberal - I actually agree that if Libby committed perjury, he ought to be prosecuted, convicted and jailed. However, the appeal urged by the amici goes not to whether Libby should have been prosecuted, but to structural error: whether the prosecutor in this case was appointed correctly, and thus whether the indictment was valid, an argument that is hardly without merit (as the list of people signing the brief should suggest) and which, should it prevail, would close further proceedings on the case.
"What about the overlying crime? Think our justice system could function long if people were allowed to lie to Grand Juries?"
I thought we already dealt with that issue because of President Clinton. Of course it's OK to lie to grand juries, as long as it's only about sex.
Well, I think this Republican Judge has distinguished himself by giving Libby treatment equal to what regular citizens get. (I don't compliment Republicans lightly).
However, the right wing agrees with you, some so much they're issuing death threats.
Here we go again. Change the subject to Clinton. I'm not taking the bait and encourage others not to let them change the subject.
Judge Reggie Walton is an enema of the people.
If only Libby had shot someone's husband; hell, that's bringing only 6 months these days.
This is funny, from 7 nachos:
"Juries and grand juries are finders of fact. Their job is to determine who is telling the truth and what the truth is."
Here I thought they were supposed to decide if there is probable cause to return an indictment. You may want to spread the news. The ABA and others are in need of your instruction.
What a creative approach to manufacture your own definition. Nice of you to put your seal of approval on lying though.
And, it was 2 counts of lying and 2 counts of obstruction of justice, as I recall.
"It is an impressive show of public service when twelve prominent and distinguished current and former law professors of well-respected schools are able to amass their collective wisdom in the course of only several days to provide their legal expertise to the Court on behalf of a criminal defendant. The Court trusts that this is a reflection of these eminent academics’ willingness in the future to step to the plate and provide like assistance in cases involving any of the numerous litigants, both in this Court and throughout the courts of our nation, who lack the financial means to fully and properly articulate the merits of their legal positions even in instances where failure to do so could result in monetary penalties, incarceration, or worse. The Court will certainly not hesitate to call for such assistance from these luminaries, as necessary in the interests of justice and equity, whenever similar questions arise in the cases that come before it."
--Judge Reggie Walton
Here's one guy who thinks laws apply even to Republicans!
The standard to stay the sentence pending appeal is not merely that the defendant filed a notice of appeal and the appeal is pending. It takes a little bit more than just that. There has to be a reasonable possibility of actually prevailing on the appeal, and Walton doesn't think he has that.
Me, I'm still trying to figure out why Libby lied.
AlphaLiberal said...
"Here we go again. Change the subject to Clinton."
That isn't a subject change. Clinton perjured himself and was rightly impeached. Libby perjured himself and was rightly prosecuted. It's a package deal. You can't say one was right and the other was wrong. I realize that's going to piss of people on both sides, but that's the way I see it. The only difference is that there's no question that the House had the authority to impeach Clinton while there is an appealable question about whether the prosecutor here was correctly appointed and thus was able to indict Libby in the first place.
As to Walton's footnote, it's already been taken apart here by Eugene Volokh.
And, yes, Plame was covert.
Yes, she was covert. The fact that she was working on WMD shows how little the Bush Command really cared about the issue they took us to war over.
To Zeb's question, I think Libby lied and obstructed justice to protect his boss and because he thought he could get away with it. Motive and opportunity. If had told the truth, they could have nailed a wide swath of top Bush Command officials.
The big uninvestigated issue, though, is the fraudulent memo used to push Bush's fraudulent case for war.
Zeb,
You sit there and testify for 8 hours without being permitted to check your notes about what went on 6 months ago and see if you tell 100% of the truth and then get back to us on that one. That is what went on. And it was about a conflict with what Russert said and Russert's testimony to the FBI is now lost somewhere so the case is based on he said/he said with the testimonyu of one of the people involved lost and not available. Then there is the problem that all the people who could be brought up to testify to what Russert knew were not permitted to be called by the defense because the judge said he knew what they would say.
I think Bush will give him a respite pending the finding by the appeals court and will not pardon him until the appeals court has finished their rulings and possibly even the Supremes will get involved. The whole thing that the amicus brief addresses about the appointment of Fitz is so different from what the law says is required for special prosecutors and Fitz did not follow the prescribed procedures at all so there is a chance that the whole thing will get thrown out. Check in with Just One Minute blog to see what all the lawyers there have to say about this judge and his ruling here.
Simon, please provide a link (not from some hysterical right wing blog) showing Clinton's conviction on perjury. Good luck finding that, because, outside of the impeachment circus in the House, it didn't happen.
Lie much? Bear false witness much?
Clinton was acquitted of perjury by the Senate.
And, after $65 million, all Ken Starr could prove was that Clinton was unfaithful in his marriage. That was followed by an avalanche of revelations of top Republicans being unfaithful (and hypocritical). Newt was doing a staffer, as I recall.
And, yes, Plame was covert. Yes, she was covert.
AlphaLiberal thinks "the prosecuting attorney says it is true" is the same thing as "it is true". One wonders why we even need trials.
Clinton was acquitted of perjury by the Senate.
Since it is an objective fact that Clinton was guilty of perjury, all his acquittal tells us is that the Senate voted on political lines rather than legal ones.
Liars get what liars get.
Except those who stuff classified NSA documents down their unmentionables and hide them under construction trailers.
Still trying to figure out how he walked on that but then my ears start to bleed.
AlphaLiberal said...
"Simon, please provide a link (not from some hysterical right wing blog) showing Clinton's conviction on perjury."
I didn't say he was convicted in a court of law, I said -- exact quote -- that "Clinton perjured himself and was rightly impeached." He ought to have been prosecuted as well, IMO. I'm not entirely sure I understand your antagonism towards me in this thread when I largely agree with what I understand to be your position on this case. Libby perjured himself, and those who perjure themselves ought to face legal consequences, yes? We agree on that much?
AJ asks whether it's usual for a District Court to deny bail pending appeal. It's hard to generalize here. In my experience (in the 2d Cir not the DC Cir), district judges frequently grant bail pending appeal, especially in white collar cases where there is no danger to the community and no risk of flight. In cases involving violence or drugs, however, bail pending appeal is probably the exception rather than the rule.
But if the district judge thinks that the appeal is a complete waste of time -- and bear in mind that the affirmance rate for federal convictions on appeal is extremely high, on the order of 95+% -- it's not unprecedented for a judge to deny bail pending appeal.
Of course, Libby can still ask the Court of Appeals to grant bail pending appeal, even though the District Court has turned Libby down. Judge Walton's comments suggest that he formed some pretty strong views about Libby (and maybe about Bush/Cheney); the same may not be true (probably won't be true) of the C of A. And I suspect that they will find the issue framed by the law prof's amicus (about the constitutionality of the special prosecutor's appointment) a more significant issue than did Judge Walton. If the C of A concludes that there is a litigable issue on appeal, I think Libby has a reasonable shot at getting bail pending appeal from the DC Circuit.
Yep, Hoosier Daddy. Libby’s in the can, while Berger’s buns are only lightly toasted. Heinz-Kerry can’t catch-up to the nuances, but the Doles realize everything’s fruity in criminal and upside-down torte these days.
IIRC, the standard for release pending appeal is whether the appeal presents "close" questions that, if resolved in Libby's favor, would alter the verdict or the sentence, not whether the judge thinks the appeal is likely to prevail. That's a statutory requirement. That only makes sense. Otherwise we'd be asking Walton to rule on whether or not the trial judge (Walton) had made reversible error. Not many judges, or anyone else, are so candid with themselves that they are likely to see, much less admit, that they have made such an error so soon after a trial.
In this case, there shouldn't be any doubt that Libby's appeal will present several close questions that, if answered differently, might have led to a different outcome. Of this fact the best evidence are the rulings made by Walton. In his, at times lengthy, opinions, Walton pointed out that the issues he was faced with were novel, with very little, if any, statutory or case law to guide the outcome. In one case, he said in chambers that accepting the position of the prosecution would prevent Libby from having a fair trial -- only to reverse himself the following week by accepting that position. How is that NOT a close question?
You don't have to believe that Walton was wrong at trial on ANY issue to also believe that many of the questions Walton resolved involved the type of close question the statute says entitles Libby to be free pending his appeal.
The relevant authority in the State of Arkansas thought President Clinton was guilty enough of perjury to take his law license away for five years.
The jury decided Libby perjured himself. Tough break, but that's they way it goes.
This case is involves at least two issues: First, was Libby incorrectly convicted. That is, did Libby intend to mislead the FBI and the grand jury. (I don't think there is any doubt that Libby's testimony was inaccurate.) Second, did the prosecution substantially violate Libby's due process (or other constitutional rights) such that he did not receive a fair trial (even if the verdict was correct).
I don't see how we can know the answer to the first issue since Judge Walton did not allow Libby to pursue two of his planned defenses: Walton would not allow Libby to present expert testimony that would have said, in essence, that Libby's testimony to the FBI and to the grand jury was consistent with someone trying to give accurate recollections when their memory is false. The expert also would have said that the degree of certainty a witness feels about the correctness of his or testimony has little correlation to the accuracy of the testimony. In addition to barring this expert testimony, Walton would not allow Libby to call Andrea Mitchell to impeach the prosecution's Tim Russert. Russert testified at trial that Mitchell would have told him had she known of Plame before Novak's article was published. Mitchell had said on TV that she had known of Plame, only to recant a few weeks later. What would the jury have done with the testimony of the expert and of Mitchell? They may have come to the same verdict, but they may have not. I don't see how anyone can say we know the answer to this first question in the absence of Libby's having had a chance to put on his best defense.
With regard to the second question, I can understand the view that Libby shouldn't have lied and it does not matter if the prosecution violated his rights in order to obtain a conviction. I don't accept that view, but I understand it. In this case, the prosecution appears to have violated several DOJ guidelines in its prosecution of Libby. Two clear examples: First, early in the process – before the special counsel was even appointed, the prosecution knew who had leaked Plame’s name to Novak. Evidently, the prosecution had also determined that no crime had been committed because the original leaker was never in jeopardy. Why, then, was Libby subjected to hours of grilling before the grand jury? The most likely explanation – because it fits with the known facts better than any other – is that the prosecution was setting a perjury trap. As a general rule, we don’t allow prosecutors to call citizens before grand juries without a legitimate reason. (And, no, “to see if they’ll tell the truth” is not a legitimate reason.) For good reasons, we do not allow police to “entrap” citizens into committing a crime. Those same reasons argue against allowing prosecutors to question someone for eight hours in the hope they’ll tell a lie. In Libby’s case, the prosecution’s actions are particularly egregious. The DOJ has long recognized that government employees may be unable, for practical reasons, to take advantage of their constitutional rights to avoid testifying. The DOJ has established guidelines to prevent prosecutors from taking advantage of such a “wounded” adversary. In this case, Libby was not only told he could not take the 5th, he was told to “cooperate fully” with the investigation. Diarrhea of the mouth appears to be Libby’s idea of what it means to cooperate fully. The DOJ guidelines were established to protect Libby when he could not protect himself. Instead, the prosecution took advantage of Libby’s disadvantage.
Second, the prosecution had Judy Miller, a reporter for the NYT, jailed for failure to testify to the grand jury concerning Libby. To send Miller to jail, the prosecution filed with the court what can charitably described as a highly misleading statement. (The prosecution hinted that it was looking for evidence of who had leaked the name of a covert agent; by that time the prosecution knew the answer to that question. It was, instead, looking for evidence of perjury.) While the DOJ does NOT recognize any kind of reporter privilege, it does grant reporters substantial deference and prosecutors are only supposed to pursue jailing reporters when the reporter is the ONLY source of evidence of a MATERIAL crime. The prosecution's actions here appear to violate DOJ policy.
Let's see if I understand the logic. The IP refuses to provide the defense with the requested information to determine whether or not Plame qualified as covert under the relevant statute. He convinces the judge that it is irrelevant. He then states that she was covert, without offering any proof, and that is taken by our liberal posters here as definitive proof that she was. And then, he uses that to double Libby's sentence, after refusing to provide evidence to the defense and successfully argues against it with the judge. Doesn't make sense to me, but that is why I am not a liberal.
Oh, and the fact that the IP used that to double Libby's sentence, is also grounds for appeal.
BTW, Plame may have been covert as far as some at the CIA were concerned. She may have traveled overseas under cover during the requisite five years (though that itself is arguably not sufficient).
But the fact that the CIA was doing little, if anything, to protect her covert status takes her outing outside the statute. For example, she worked at Langley. And when Novak called up and asked if she worked at the CIA, he was told she did.
It should be noted that the IP knew all this before he grilled Libby all those times, etc. He knew that whether or not Plame had worked overseas covertly during those five years, the CIA was not taking enough precautions to protect her identity. It was public published information.
Added to this is that Plame's husband, a known enemy of the Administration, was sent to Niger on this fact finding mission. He was not bound to secrecy, and was allowed to publish the NYT article. Again, strong indicia of the CIA not taking affirmative steps to protect her identity. And, again, all publicly know by the time that the IP interviewed Libby.
I should also note that there was no evidence whatsoever that Libby, or really anyone outside the CIA, knew that the CIA was trying to protect her identity. And another requirement for conviction under that statute is intent (scienter).
I do find it interesting that the statute requires that a judge essentially determine whether he, himself, made questionable rulings in a case before a defendant can be released pending appeal.
This would seem to go against human nature, esp. as we find in many judges. Judge Walton here probably didn't help himself by being so snarky about the amici.
David,
Thanks for the analysis. Very interesting.
I do find it interesting that the statute requires that a judge essentially determine whether he, himself, made questionable rulings in a case before a defendant can be released pending appeal. - Bruce Hayden
Bruce, I'm not sure the statute should be read that way. Andy McCarthy makes that argument on The Corner, but I disagree. Instead, all Walton had to conclude was that the questions presented in the appeal was that they were "close" questions -- not that the questions were answered wrongly, but that another could reasonably answer the questions differently. That does not require too much humility. Just more than Walton was able to muster.
Instead Libby should get his law license suspended for 5 years....
Its amazing that Fitzgerald continued to question Libby even after knowing that Libby did not leak Plame's name who was not covert anyway.
So Fitzgerald's only purpose for questioning Libby was a fishing expedition for some unrelated matter or to catch Libby in a misstatement.. which he did.
Libby should be pardoned.
If Libby lied under oath -- and given how bad the judge seems to be, I'm skeptical that he did -- then he deserves to go to jail. It doesn't matter that Clinton deserves to go to jail. The fact that OJ Simpson deserves to be serving a life sentence in PMITA prison doesn't mean that other murderers get to go free.
The follow-up I'd like to see to this investigation is a grand jury investigation of Fitzgerald himself. An awful lot of leaks came out of that grand jury that were helpful to the prosecution, and every one of them was a criminal act. Then there are the issues of abuse of power and the like.
alpha....don't waste your time with reason and logic with the likes of sloan and rev and a few of the other zanies.
the only answers they know are clinton did this and berger did that and fitzgerald is really a communist.
will bush pardon him? probably. he is one who greatly admirers lying weasels being one himself...old scooter is gotta be something of a role model for him.
alpha, when they come at you with such weak game just laugh at them..i do. they are intellectually challenged and some, like that dumbshit sloan, i thought to actually be bots cause you can read the crap they peddle on a lot of blogs.
just laugh and ask them if this is the best cheese they got.
Ah, hdhouse's roommate is back. Or his evil twin.
Really, house, or whoever is posting under your name this week, Sloan points out that "Fitzgerald continued to question Libby even after knowing that Libby did not leak Plame's name" (and didn't know who did so).
If it had been your father who was being pummelled with questions about something he actually didn't know and you found out after Dad got convicted for lying about it that the DA already knew it wasn't your Dad and knew Dad didn't know the secret, would you have considered that justice?
All this shows is that, after griping about the unnecessary prosecution of a sex scandal, you turn around and do the same thing for revenge. There's never been a moral or ethical point here, no point of law. It's just more political ox-goring. Face it, you're happy because your side got one, even if under false pretenses.
Democrats, mighty and proud.
Now, go after those earmarks you'd previously repudiated. But be careful when you live by that sword.
I wonder if the The Innocence Project can be persuaded to take up, not a mere murderer, but someone they really detested?
"...hdhouse's roommate is back."
Indeed. And his last comment totally blew out my irony-o-meter.
HDhouse, right you are. I do enjoy coming to these non-left blogs and mixing it up with different thinking people. Not so much people who insist on holding onto their own version of facts that are proved wrong repeatedly.
Otherwise, it's helpful to go outside of one's comfort zone, which may be what many are doing here.
Missing in all the excuses people are making for the the wrongdoer Libby is that he and Cheney consulted on the leak campaign regularly as they carried it out. It's my hunch that they planned Scooter to take a fall all along - and he will get a pardon from the mob figurehead.
And, the underlying violation of ethics, (if not law) is that some of the most powerful men in the land used the power of the White House to whack a guy's wife because the guy effectively showed them to be liars.
They whacked his wife. What kind of punk does that? See: Scooter Libby and Dick Cheney. Chickenhawks and wife beaters, but they beat someone else's wife.
30 months is too good for him.
This is a bit off topic, but I wonder about the dynamic that seems to occur at most every political blog I have seen. There is a seemingly inevitable ramping up of the rhetoric in the comments--they become more and more agitated, profane, argumentative, and angrily emotional. There is nothing wrong with differing political stances and priorities--which seems to be a point lost on most people today. However, I'm convinced that nothing is accomplished when the comments deteriorate into nasty name-calling, the predictable same accusations and counter-accusations, and emotional attacks. Too many seem more interested in venting their spleens than any sober exchange of ideas. I think it's kind of pathetic. There are very few comment sections that I can read anymore without shaking my head, and turning away. Too often, what seems to be on display are the inner demons of the commenters rather than any reasonable discourse.
Simon:
Clinton was not convicted of perjury. So for you to say he perjured himself is a misrepresentation. HE never had his day in court, unless you count kangaroo court of the House.
At this point, you'd think con's would be too embarrassed to bring up the Clinton impeachment. "But he LIED about a blow job!" Uh-huh. And no-one died.
With Bush the list of lies is very long. His people just seem to lie reflexively. No uranium from Africa, which was Joe Wilson's point. They scared the American people and our cowardly press into a stampede to a bloody war that has created a war zone for al qaeda and others.
hdhouse says:
is the best cheese they got.
Actually mine is Danish havarti which goes wonderfully with a chilled Kabinett or Reisling.
Considering you can’t make any kind of point other than calling someone who you don’t agree with a brownshirt or dumbass I’m betting you’re a mild cheddar guy.
AL:
You keep forgeting that Cinton's lie was not about a BJ, but about his pattern of sexual harrassment, something that went the the heart of the matter he was in court for.
Knowingly lying under oath to prevent the opposition from verifing a material fact, especially one later proven true, is completely different from Libby's case.
Clinton was not convicted of perjury for one simple fact- as President he could not be tried for a criminal act; he needed to be removed from office first and the impeachment failed.
Clinton did voluntarily surrender his law license, instead of facing possible disbarrment procedings; what does that say to you?
I'm not taking the bait and encourage others not to let them change the subject.
Thanks for the tip! You know, it's good to know we have a self-appointed moderator to guide the discussion and keep us on task.
Alpha,
"No uranium from Africa, which was Joe Wilson's point."
Can you really be that uninformed? Really??? Sadly, I think it's rather the case that you're that partisan. How contemptible...
Fitzgerald tried to investigate Judith Miller's contacts with an Islamic charity to determine if her questions may have tipped them off to an investigation that he was heading when he was USA in Chicago.
Scotter Libby was part of Marc Rich's defense team when he was under investigation by the office of the USA for the Southern District of New York. The investigation was lead by AUSA's Patrick Fitzgerald and James Comey.
Interesting that the only two people to serve jail time in Fitz's windmill-tilting expedition are Libby and Miller.
Kirk: Niger, Africa....all those African countries look alike, ya know.
AlphaLiberal said...
"Clinton was not convicted of perjury. So for you to say he perjured himself is a misrepresentation."
As I think someone already explained to you upthread, he is on videotape stating something that is flatly at odds with what we know to be the truth while under oath. Presumption has limits. In the 12(b)(6) context, we make certain assumptions about the non-moving party's position, but those assumptions evaporate when there is video footage of the events in question. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. __ (2007). Likewise, you can say that Clinton was never convicted in court, but while there is the presumption of innocent until found guilty in a court of law, that presumption is hard to maintain in the face of uncontested video evidence.
"At this point, you'd think con's would be too embarrassed to bring up the Clinton impeachment. "But he LIED about a blow job!" Uh-huh. And no-one died."
Please point to the exception in § 1623 that priveleges testimony about sex.
Clinton was not convicted of perjury. So for you to say he perjured himself is a misrepresentation.
Saying he perjured himself is an honest and accurate statement -- he lied under oath in court. Saying he was convicted of perjury would be a misrepresentation, but nobody's doing that.
HE never had his day in court, unless you count kangaroo court of the House.
So you support prosecuting Clinton for perjury in an actual court? Glad to see we're on the same page here.
alpha....don't waste your time with reason and logic with the likes of sloan and rev and a few of the other zanies.
I love when the local lefties do their little biweekly "there's no point in talking to anyone but each other" pose. Do they think the prospect of being denied further AlphaWisdom and hdinsights actually bothers anybody?
the weasel in the white house will pardon the weasel who did the dirty work of the other two weasels in the white house.
rev,
was libby convicted of perjury or not?
simon,
was clinton convicted of perjury or not?
der says "Interesting that the only two people to serve jail time in Fitz's windmill-tilting expedition are Libby and Miller."
maybe he's not done yet.
Clinton: Former U.S. President Bill Clinton was accused of perjury and as a result was fined for contempt of court.
Libby: Libby was convicted of four out of the five counts against him. He was found guilty of two counts of perjury in testimony before a federal grand jury, one count of obstruction of justice in a federal grand jury investigation, and one of two counts of making false statements to federal investigators.
PERIOD.
Revnanbt:
"Saying he perjured himself is an honest and accurate statement -- he lied under oath in court. Saying he was convicted of perjury would be a misrepresentation, but nobody's doing that."
So you're all for "guilty until proven otherwise".
How very un-American of you.
Revenant said....."I love when the local lefties do their little biweekly "there's no point in talking to anyone but each other" pose. Do they think the prospect of being denied further AlphaWisdom and hdinsights actually bothers anybody?
For what its worth, I would miss their wisdom and insights. But then again, I am here mostly for entertainment purposes ;-).
So you're all for "guilty until proven otherwise".
I witnessed Bill Clinton's perjury with my own eyes and ears. It doesn't have to be proven that he did it, nor would it be possible to prove that he didn't. You might as well try "proving" planes didn't hit the World Trade Center.
An example for those of you not bright enough to comprehend:
AlphaLiberal's a silly fat wanker.
Now, did I call AlphaLiberal a silly fat wanker or not? No court ever found that I did, so I guess I didn't... at least, according to Alpha's reasoning. :)
Alpha's question is correct. Was clinton convicted. Yes or No.
You can't answer because it blows your position. the answer is NO.
Clinton wasn't convicted of anything was he? No.
Why can't you answer? Why do you just hurl crap? Your cheese ain't so good.
Alpha's question is correct. Was clinton convicted. Yes or No.
You can't answer because it blows your position.
I have repeatedly stated that Clinton wasn't convicted. Not only does that fact fail to "blow my position", you'd pretty much have to have shit for brains to think that it has any bearing on my position: that Clinton is guilty of perjury.
To spell it out in even simpler terms that a left-winger might be capable of understanding: even if Clinton was indicted by a grand jury, and put on trial, and found innocent, after which Ken Starr himself personally flew down to apologize and proclaim Clinton's innocence, and then GOD descended from the clouds and said "yea verily, Clinton is innocent of perjury" -- it would still be a simple matter of fact that Clinton is guilty of perjury.
He said under oath, he didn't have a sexual relationship with a woman he'd been getting blowjobs from for months. That a lie, plain and simple, and a lie told under oath is perjury even if every judge, juror and lawyer in the world says otherwise. Hopefully that simple fact will be able to penetrate even the thick skulls of Alpha and HD, but realistically speaking that would probably take a diamond-tipped drill.
O.J. is still out there. Searching for the real killers.
Revenant said...
He said under oath, he didn't have a sexual relationship with a woman he'd been getting blowjobs from for months. That a lie, plain and simple, and a lie told under oath is perjury even if every judge, juror and lawyer in the world says otherwise.
Actually, not so plain and simple. In the clip that Simon linked to above what Clinton said was (paraphrasing a bit): It is not my recollection that I engaged in "sexual relations" with Lewinsky as "sexual relations" is defined for purposes of this deposition.
Do I think Clinton received blowjobs from Lewinsky? Yes. Do I think that the Judge in the Jones lawsuit thought the definition included receiving a blowjob? Yes. Do I think that Jones' lawyers thought the definition included receiving a blowjob? Yes. Do I think that Clinton's lawyer in the Jones lawsuit thought the definition included receiving a blowjob? Probably. Do I think the definition includes receiving a blowjob? I'm either not sure or I'd say not necessarily. Do I think the only reading a person could give to the definition is that it includes receiving a blowjob? No.
Sidney Blumenthal catches a funny Wolfowitz screwup in trying to support Libby. It shows the hypocrisy of the right wing in dismissing the Cheney Command's exposure of Plame.
Wolfowitz refers to a previous incident where Libby lobbied reporters not to reveal the identity of a covert CIA agent, which Plame was.
So, he knew that was a problem and he did so to Plame anyway. And the right wing makes excuses because he's one of their own, and the "moderates" are silent.
Jims,
Did you read the transcript at the URL you linked? Here's a quote:
Clinton: I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.
So your paraphrase is not accurate.
Do I think the definition includes receiving a blowjob? I'm either not sure or I'd say not necessarily
A blowjob obviously meets the definition. Plus, of course, you're missing the fact that the bit about not having a sexual affair with Lewinsky was also a lie -- and on that one, you can't even plead that he didn't meet some special court definition of "sexual", as blowjobs are by definition sexual.
Wolfowitz refers to a previous incident where Libby lobbied reporters not to reveal the identity of a covert CIA agent, which Fitzgerald claims Plame was.
Fixed your typo, Alpha.
The COurt stated Plame was covert.
Fixed yer typo.
So your paraphrase is not accurate.
I was clear that I was paraphrasing the clip that Simon had linked to upthread. The link I provided was mainly provided togive the definition for "sexual relations". Regardless, even his statement taken alone ("I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.") means "I did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky as 'sexual relations' is defined for the purposes of this deposition."
A blowjob obviously meets the definition.
It's obvious that when Clinton received his blowjob that he intentionally had "contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of" Lewinsky? It is obvious that it is obvious to you. But is it obvious that it was obvious to Clinton?
Regardless, even his statement taken alone ("I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.") means "I did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky as 'sexual relations' is defined for the purposes of this deposition."
It was your use of "my recollection" that I objected to. Obviously it is not plausible that Clinton would have forgotten she'd sucked his dick.
It's obvious that when Clinton received his blowjob that he intentionally had "contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of" Lewinsky?
The definition says "any person", not "Lewinsky". Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky jointly caused a person's genitals to be touched by a person with intent to gratify sexual desire.
So Clinton was involved in sexual relations with Lewinsky, both under the literal definition in use in the court and under the ordinary everyday definition normally in use. The best you could argue is that, in attempting to deceive the court by using a technical distinction contained in the definition, Bill Clinton made a claim that was false even under that definition -- but making a false statement while attempting to deceive is a lie.
Let's say you rob a store at 11:59pm Friday, but since your watch is fast you think you robbed it at 12:00am Saturday. When the prosecutor asks you "are you responsible for the robbery that occurred on Friday night", you answer "no". You have perjured yourself, and the defense that you thought you'd actually robbed the store one minute later and were using that fact to deceive the jury carries no weight with anyone. Intent to deceive is the key factor, and one clearly present in the Clinton case.
It is obvious that it is obvious to you. But is it obvious that it was obvious to Clinton?
Yes, it is obvious that it was obvious to Clinton. But none of that is irrelevant, of course. The lie of his that I cited was his denial of a sexual *relationship*, which was separate from his denial of sexual relations (he denied sexual "affairs", "relations", and "relationships"). Even if one were inclined to accept his claim that the definition of "sexual relations" covered his ass, there was no convenient redefinition of "sexual affair" or "sexual relationship" for him to hide behind.
Obviously it is not plausible that Clinton would have forgotten she'd sucked his dick.
I completely agree. It is plausible, however, that he could have forgotten that, in the course of her sucking his dick, he fondled her breasts which would more clearly fall in the definiton of sexual relations.
The definition says "any person", not "Lewinsky". Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky jointly caused a person's genitals to be touched by a person with intent to gratify sexual desire.
But that is not Clinton's reading of the definition. In Clinton's view, Lewinsky could have been having sexual relations with him while he was not having sexual relations with her. An odd reading perhaps, but to find perjury the jury would have to find that Clinton didn't actually hold that view of the definition.
Let's say you rob a store at 11:59pm Friday, but since your watch is fast you think you robbed it at 12:00am Saturday. When the prosecutor asks you "are you responsible for the robbery that occurred on Friday night", you answer "no". You have perjured yourself, and the defense that you thought you'd actually robbed the store one minute later and were using that fact to deceive the jury carries no weight with anyone. Intent to deceive is the key factor, and one clearly present in the Clinton case.
Actually, I think you are wrong on this. If I believe that I robbed the place on Saturday, I do not commit perjury by answering "no" to the question "did I rob the place on Friday." To commit perjury not only do I have to say something untrue, I have to believe it to be untrue. Also, this Supreme Court case pretty clearly rejects the "intent to mislead" basis for a perjury prosecution. (But compare this 6th Circuit case which holds "a defendant may be found guilty of perjury if a jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence presented that the defendant knew what the question meant and gave knowingly untruthful and materially misleading answers in response.") I don't have access to Shepards/Westlaw/Lexis to see how the Supreme Court case has been limited.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा