Email address obfuscation in effect -- please
click here to turn it off.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Spurling, Shannon wrote:
The reason he mentioned Clinton's perjury charge is because it's the
same charge leveled aginst two people. The cases are different, but it's
the same indictment about not telling the truth in a court of law.
I understand now what he was getting at. Of course, the Libby case means
that Libby has successfully concealed the truth from us forever and the
Clinton case meant nothing then and it still means nothing.
One is that people have the strange idea that Libby was protecting
Cheney. Apparently they were able to corroborate the events that were
counter to Libby's statement. That means they should be able to prove or
disprove charges aginst whom ever he was protecting, because they can
prove the falacy of his statements beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I don't follow that argument.
He's useless as a scapegoat, and his charges, counter to what Obama says
in his offical statement, have nothing to do with the revelation of the
covert agents identity.
Which leads to my second observation about this whole mess. His
conviction had nothing to do with the revelation of Plames identity. It
only hinged on the fact that he made statements that were factualy
dishonest, period. Nothing to do with an outed identity. Nothing.
He was lying about *when* he told people about Plame. He was going around
scheduling meetings with people to tell them that Wilson's wife was a CIA
operative. He lied about when those meetings occurred. Why was he
telling people about Plame?? What am I getting wrong here?
And another point I have seen out in Internet land hinges on the fact
that Bush said he would not interfear with the apeals process. If you
read his statement, that is still his intent. The only reason he
commuted the prison time was so that Libby could remain free while
seeking his apeal. The judge forced the issue by refusing his request to
stay out of jail while the apeal was in process. It's not an unusual
request. IIRC Martha Stewart and a lot of other high profile cases that
involved small time white collar crime have done this.
Do you mean that Libby may still go to prison if the appeal fails?
Making sure people are honest in court is a very importiant goal for
prosecuting violations like this. Problem is, were his statements due to
not understanding what was going on or not remembering things clearly or
in the right order. That is the question and it's a lot less of an issue
than what the news people want you to think.
The clever way to lie in court is to say that you don't remember.
Mike
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Home | FAQ | Server | Presentations | Mailing Lists/Archives | Member Tools | Links | Sponsors | Contact