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 (711158)	11/4/2005 2:54:08 PM
From: pompsander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Hugh, here is the problem...If Mr. Libby said he learned something for the first time from Mr. X on date xx, (and the investigation is generally about that very subject - who told whom about x), and is is shown he lied, he is in trouble. His motive is frankly irrelevant. If he thought what he was saying was the truth, and it wasn't, then when presented with the contradictory info (and he certainly was), he could have corrected the matter.....in fact maybe he DID correct it later when trapped and this created the nail in the coffin for perjury because he had been so steadfast earlier on the false statement - we don't know any of this, but it is often how it works. If your claim is that he had no motive because he was ignorant of why he was testifying, and what the case was all about - can't buy that. And, yes, you can commit perjury in a case that goes away. You can commit perjury in a case involving a claim of murder when the defendent is found not guilty. However, the perjurer lied during the trial. No murder (by law) but pejury could result.