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: HPilot who wrote (711139)	11/4/2005 1:48:34 PM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

The motive could to be to cover up political embarassment for a non-crime like Clinton lying to cover up embarassment for consensual sex with Monica.

To: HPilot who wrote (711139)	11/4/2005 2:16:33 PM
From: pompsander	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

"I don't think you can be convicted of perjury, if it can be shown that the perpetrator did not know or had reason to believe a crime was committed. That is there would be no motive to lie to the court." Not True at all...Perjury is an act unto itself. If one makes false statements under oath, knowing them to be false, it can be about any subject he is asked about, even how to boil an egg. Yes, there must be materiality to the underlying scope of the grand jury investigation, but that test was well met in Libby's case, as the focus was when he knew and what he said. This is the only way it can work. The intent to perjure oneself (which is the only intent required by that crime) is only the intent to tell a knowing untruth. Perjury stands alone under the law, unconnected to the subject about one is being asked. It serves as an independent deterrent against lying and protects the integrity of the system. There is no "end justifies the means" as regards perjury. This is why the people getting excited about Libby getting off because some newspeople might have known something about Plame. The question he was asked was how and when HE first learned about Plame are missing the point. Fitz is way too smart to bring these indictments unless he has these falsehoods nailed down, locked down and glued down. it does not matter when others knew...when did Libby know? And when did he say he knew? And from whom exactly? Perjury is a serious business...and actually rarely used. It is often a threat made by prosecutors and an effective threat it can be...tends to get the story inaccuracies cleared up and prompts clearer recollections. In Libby's case we have not only perjury but obstruction of justice...more here than meets the eye.