Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (710956)	11/3/2005 4:59:22 PM
From: Mao II	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Andrea Mitchell also claimed Wilson said Cheney sent him to Niger. Wilson said no such thing. Why did she lie? Maybe she is simply confused. M2

To: Bill who wrote (710956)	11/3/2005 5:05:24 PM
From: pompsander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

It's still about perjury and making false statements...even if we fully grant your assumption..let's say, for example, that I am called to testify about the something to do with baseball. (Fitzgerald seems to like baseball, so we will use baseball analogies). I am asked under oath how I found out that Chicago won the world series. I state, once, twice, three times that I found out by being told the day after the final game by my brother. I have lots of opportunities to refresh my recollection, check my notes or even say I don't remember. I don't. I say I say my brother told me first. It is later shown by other testimony, weblogs, and an e-mail I sent that I found out the Chicago won from watching it on television as it occured. Is it illegal to know about how they won? No. Does it matter about the legalities of baseball if I am charged (for some reason) with perjury? No. Is the knowing false statement I made the key. Yes. Is that a crime in and of itself. Yes? Can I argue that knowing who won is not a crime...sure, but it won't matter to the issue of perjury. Libby says he found out the information in question a certain way. He said it to the FBI. He said it to the grand jury. It turns out (according to the indictment) he found out at least three other ways, and earlier. If proven, he is guilty. I have seen perjury or false statement charges work exactly like this. Forget who knew what...did he answer the question truthfully? Just as Fitzgerald said the indictment is not about the war, it is also not about who knew what about Plame (ultimately). It is about lying under oath.