Carlson changed his tune on independent counsels, importance of lying in an investigation
SUMMARY: Tucker Carlson called Patrick Fitzgerald, the lead prosecutor in the trial of Lewis
"Scooter" Libby,
a "lunatic" who is "running around destroying people's
lives for no good reason." But Carlson's view of the seriousness
of allegations of lying under oath seems to have changed since the Clinton
years, when he defended independent counsel Ken Starr against Democrats'
attacks.
On the February 1 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, during a discussion of the trial of former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Jr., host Tucker Carlson called special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald a "lunatic" who is "running around destroying people's lives for no good reason," despite having criticized Democrats for their attacks on former independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr over his numerous investigations of the Clintons and, particularly, of the Monica Lewinsky matter. Carlson's suggestion that Libby's alleged activities -- resulting in charges of perjury, obstruction, and making false statements -- do not amount to a "good reason" for Fitzgerald's actions seems to be a departure from his view of Starr's investigation, about which Carlson then said the critical issue was not the independent counsel's actions, but whether President Clinton "was lying."
For example, from the May 27, 1998, edition of CNN's Inside Politics:
BERNARD SHAW (co-host): Does it matter how he's [Starr] conducted this investigation? Does it really matter?
MARGARET CARLSON (Time magazine columnist at the time): Well, it doesn't matter because the independent counsel is not controlled by anybody or anything. It's not a democracy. The polls don't matter. None of that matters. But at a certain point, it may matter when he sends his report to the Congress, whether or not it becomes endorsed opt or whether it's a call to arms for the Republicans. And the degree to which the public is going along with this will then make a difference.
TUCKER CARLSON: Yeah, but I also think the bottom line, whether or not he's conducted his investigation in any matter [sic? manner], ultimately the question will be he's going to bring up a report that has clear evidence of the president was lying when he said he didn't have a relationship with Monica Lewinsky. How is the public going to deal with that? I think there are signs now that even Democrats are getting wobbly on Clinton, using the China scandal as an opportunity to indicate that they're not fully behind the president.
During the '90s, Carlson also criticized those who attacked Starr personally. In a December 16, 1996, Weekly Standard article, Carlson assailed Democratic strategist James Carville's statements about Starr: "Carville's rhetoric has recently gone from ordinary political agitation to potentially destructive demagoguery. Even his friends recognize that he has crossed a boundary, and they are appalled." Similarly, in a February 23, 1998, Weekly Standard article, Carlson wrote about then-White House adviser Paul Begala's February 8, 1998, appearance on NBC's Meet the Press in which host Tim Russert said "let's get beyond the leaks, let's get beyond Ken Starr," and Begala replied, "I wish we could." Carlson wrote that Begala was acting like an "ordinary PR sleaze" and that his "performance on Meet the Press was remarkable even by the standards of political flackery and in the most obvious ways it was dishonest and transparently diversionary."
Again, Tucker Carlson criticized a pro-Clinton figure on the March 6, 2002, edition of CNN's Crossfire for attacking an independent counsel. Tucker Carlson admonished former special counsel Lanny J. Davis for his comments about independent counsel Robert W. Ray: "[l]isten to yourself. I'll play the tape for you later. And I think you'll be embarrassed. Here you are again, for the countless time in four years, attacking the messenger. Attacking the independent counsel."
Carlson's father, Richard, has also defended Libby, raising money for Libby's legal defense. As blogger Arianna Huffington noted on February 28, 2006, Richard Carlson serves on the advisory committee for the Libby Legal Defense Trust: "Indeed, Richard Carlson was the Early Money Is Like Yeast of Libby defense fund-raisers, having couriered a check to Libby's home the morning he was indicted." Tucker Carlson responded on his blog on March 2, 2006: "I didn't mention my father's support for Scooter Libby because it was irrelevant. Completely and utterly. Libby was my father's personal lawyer long before he joined the Bush administration. They're friends, and that has nothing at all to do with me."
As Media Matters for America noted, on the July 12, 2006, edition of Tucker, Tucker Carlson claimed that "[t]here's never been a shred of evidence" that the disclosure of former CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity by several Bush administration officials "compromised our national security," despite findings by Fitzgerald.
From the February 1 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:
CARLSON: Before we get to [Sen. Joseph R.] Biden [Jr. (D-DE)], very quickly, I want to go to what appears to be breaking news out of the Scooter Libby trial. I am not there. This is what we have picked up from NBC correspondents on the scene, that apparently, according to Scooter Libby's testimony today, Mike, he is saying that the vice president may have discussed leaking the name of Valerie Wilson, a CIA employee, to the press. Leaving aside my own views on this, I mean, is this significant? Is this going to affect anything?
MICHAEL FELDMAN (Democratic strategist and co-founder of HotSoup.com): Sure.
CARLSON: How?
FELDMAN: Sure, it's significant, I think -- well, politically it's significant, certainly, because all of us are talking about something that occurred -- that directly, I think, led to how we went to war and how that war was sold to the American people. And so every time we're engaged in that conversation, especially given what's on the evening news every night, I think that that's politically powerful. But, yes, if the vice president had a direct role in leaking the name of a covert operative, that would be major news.
CARLSON: But it wouldn't be a crime.
MARK McKINNON (former campaign adviser to President Bush and HotSoup.com co-founder): It's not a crime. That's what we learned from prosecution.
CARLSON: I mean, isn't that what we learned from the beginning?
FELDMAN: That's not what is on trial now. I understand that. But the fact remains that that would be a big deal.
CARLSON: Well, but it is -- I mean, I have to say -- I mean, let me just say, I think this is another example of why prosecutors ought to be, you know, tied to the Justice Department or whatever. You shouldn't have these freelancers, like this lunatic Fitzgerald, running around destroying people's lives for no good reason. I hate this trial.
On the own hand, "it's not a crime" is exactly the argument that a lot of the sleazy people around Clinton argued during impeachment. "Well, it's not a crime." As if it matters. The president is supposed to be held to a standard higher than a legal standard, is he not, Mark? And so, if the vice president's, you know, colluding to leak the name of a federal employee, it's kind of bad, isn't it?
No, more people in government should have their lives destroyed especially if they do something illegal. It is unfortunate that it is going to take a trial like this though to finally pull some truth out of this administration. If they aren't going to be truthful with their employers (the American people) then any means necessary within the law must be used to coerce them.
As for Carlson changing his tune, it is no surprise. He claims to be an 'independent conservative' which is a load of bull since he consistently puts the Republican party first over any legal or ethical question.
Tucker Carlson; ". . . For no good reason. . ."
It would appear that Tucker thinks it is more important to smear someone who has a consentual affair than to keep our military and Iraqi civilians from dying in an illegal war.
Misinformation
I certainly agree that Tucker's flip-flopping here is no surprise. Many people on the right, politician and pundit alike, deride this prosecution as trivial, but hail Clinton's impeachment as sound policy. But isn't the misinformation Carlson is advancing more noteworthy than his inconsistency?
Carlson said, I think this is another example of why prosecutors ought to be, you know, tied to the Justice Department or whatever. You shouldn't have these freelancers, like this lunatic Fitzgerald, running around destroying people's lives for no good reason.
Hello? Fitzgerald IS tied to the Justice Department! He's a special prosecutor, NOT an independent counsel. Ken Starr was the last independent counsel. We realized that he was a lunatic running around destroying lives with no accountability to anyone. Because of that, the Office of the Independent Counsel is no more.
Granted, the Justice Department gave Fitzgerald plenary power to investigate and prosecute the Plame case. But the Justice Department can also take that power away. President Bush could fire Fitzgerald, the way Nixon fired Archibald Cox. But Cox's firing is what prompted the creation of the Office of Independent Counsel in the first place. It is precisely because the Plame case is of national significance (and that people know and believe that) that Bush can't make that move politically.
Fitzgerald got involved because then-Attorney Generall John Ashcroft had a conflict of interest based on prior business dealings with potential targets of the investigation and finally relinquished control over the investigation in favor of a special prosecutor.
The matter was investigated on referral by the CIA which was outraged that non-official cover operative and the front company, Brewster Jennings, had been exposed and therefore compromised. Somehow The Decider and Darth Vader declassified secret information to make their blatant political attack legal. Certainly the legal outing of a CIA agent and operation should be considered grounds for impeachment, as the Administration chose to punish its political enemies rather than protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Tucker Carlson fails to see the big picture in all of this, maybe because it doesn't draw ratings like a sex scandal does. Very shallow.
I, too, am not surprised by this. Rush Limbaugh said the other day that this trial was bogus because it was a trial for perjury pertaining to something that was "not a crime". He actually said this, and it wasn't one of his joke segments. I'm sure that these professional liars realize their hypocrisy, but they are beyond shame. Years of lying have a tendency to deaden a person's sense of irony.
Yes. We can all recall that Clinton's bj was not a crime, but every Conservative hack claimed it was his lie that was important for impeachment. Now that their guy is questioned, it is the crime that is important, not the lie. Never mind that Clinton's crime could only hurt his family, and not the entire nation.
I could maybe stomach most pundits if they stuck to the same logic for both sides of the political spectrum, but Repub/Cons seem to think/know that Americans have poor memories.
Well, the drooling troglodytes who make up the bulk of their audience are totally oblivious to the inconsistency. They just lap it up and nod like pavlovian bobbleheads.
Another thing I remember oozing from the putrid pieholes of Limbaugh and Hannity et al was "We must hold Clinton accountable to the rule of law, or our Judicial system will collapse." They have no shame!
"It's not about sex, it's about the rule of law"
-RL
How does Tuckie dance in those flip-flops?
Tucker flip flops more than the short order cook at IHOP
Here they go again: "If no one is listening to me then I won't even listen to myself'.
I got a little confused. Is that last paragraph Carlson's quote as well? If so, doesn't it sort of contradict everything he's saying before? Are we not supposed to notice?
Tucker comes across as being foolish, selfish, and immature, and a perfect spokesperson for the Repubican party.
Rick,
Must you smear the entire Republican Party & every Republican because of Tucker?
Let's face it our opinions tend to depend on which side we're on and whether we're the pursuers or the pursued.
While I believe the Scooter Libby investigation/trial is a lot more significant in it's importance than Clinton's BJ and lying about sex, I'm not surprised that MANY from each side view it from their own [partisan] perspectives.
Smear?
You are what you eat. If the puppets are spewing this discourse and misinformation out and the majority of the Republican party are "eating this up" then ... Yes, Rick is correct in his assessment that Hannity is the perfect spokesperson for the Republican party.
Dang, edit function... Not Hannity (although it would still be true), but Tucker "IMASUCKER" Carlson should have been mentioned above.
Monkey Boy,
Tucker, Hannity, Rush, Coulter, O'Reilly etc do NOT speak for me. And unless you have a poll or a link that states for a fact that a majority of Republicans feel those named above speak for them then you're just talking out of your ass.
For me Hagel is a closer match. Buchanan on SOME issues.
Does EVERY Democrat speak for you?
My objection was simply Rick's *blanket statement* that refers to [all] Republicans as foolish, selfish, and immature.
While those I mentioned in my first sentence would fit THAT description, not ALL Republicans do.
Gotta agree with you there Jeter. I certainly should not have lumped all Repubs into that catagory. There are many good ones out there who are not immature, selfish, and foolish.
Some republicans have none of these traits.
No problem Rick :-)
I learned the hard way[I got blasted!] when I first started posting here and made several *blanket statements* about Democrats. I found out fast that including the word SOME was important to posters. And was more accurate. So I'm probably a tad more sensitive about it when I see it done in reverse.
Unfortunately there are some out there who claim to speak for all Republican/Conservatives and are in reality an embarrassment to a great many of us.
One thing I can honestly say about Democratic pundits & columnists is that they do not seem to exhibit the radical, extremist, or hateful rhetoric you find coming from some on the Right.
I've thought that to be true, but wondered about my objectivity, knowing full well that my opinion is slanted left. (not that there's anything wrong with that)
Jeter, I agree as well. I am often guilty of making blanket statements about Republicans; chalk it up to rhetorical laziness on my part. I realize that there are reasonable Republicans out there, and I'm glad that some of them are speaking out now.
Hey nerzog,
I think we all from time to time have labeled each other with *blanket statements* but I'm glad that you & other Democrat/Liberals realize that not all of us on the other side believe in or practice the Far-Right neocon nonsense. Sadly this sick group of individuals have hijacked the Party I once knew. And they've even made the word Conservative sound ugly.
I can barely recognize the Republican Party anymore :-/
None of my Conservative friends claim to be of the Neocon likeness, but every last one of them would vote for Bush again if Bush could run in 08.
Our only hope for a change may just be independents like myself and Conservatives like Jeter who are the only ones who might vote for a true Conservative or switch parties.
We can't paint every Republican the way the RW talking heads have been painting us. Jeter is an honorable man. As are many Republicans.
The Neo-conservatives and their enablers on Fox and Radio Wingnut are where we should be focused. Many Republicans are turning against the administration. We have to accept them as partners or it's only a matter of time before we're in the minority again.
Hey King,
Thanks for your kind words. I know it can be difficult at times not to lump ALL Republicans into one category, but I do appreciate that you, Rick & nerzog and many others here are able to see that some of us on the other side are as disgusted as you with the current group of neocons that have hijacked the Republican Party and wrongly have labeled themselves Conservatives. They are, IMO, closer to being fascists.
I'm hopeful that reasonable people from both sides will be able to work together and wrestle our country back from a group of people I'd like to describe as simply misguided...but realize are basically evil.
Hey J,
I think that's where most of us are now, we don't want extremes. I know there is huge difference between traditional conservatives and these people that assumed power over the last decade or so.
Oh that Carlson boy!! He is just full of jokes. Wait...this is a joke isn't it? It cannot be real? He, the Mighty Tucker, cannot flip on his intended values. Say it ain't so Tuck!!
As an aside, I wonder what Cheney looks like in stripes.
This reminds me of when I was a fresh out of college journalist working at a small weekly newspaper. A video tape came in the mail called the "Clinton Chronicles", probably not more than a year after he was elected.
After watching, it was obvious that conservatives would stop at nothing to bring down Clinton; ergo, the impeachment.
Now, it is obvious that conservatives will stop at nothing to deflect the public's awareness of VALID impeachable offenses, such as warrantless wiretapping, exposing a CIA operative, illegal wars, war profiteering, etc.
There is another critical distinction between Clinton's perjury and Scooter's. After spending millions of dollars investigating Whitewater and finding nothing to warrant proceeding against Clinton, Ken Starr talked to Tripp about Clinton's consensual relationship with Monica. Starr, thinking he was hired to "get Clinton at all costs" rather than to investigate Whitewater, then went to Paula Jones's attorneys to tell them to ask questions about Monica at Clinton's deposition, even though those questions had nothing to do with the Paula Jones case. Clinton then lied at the dep, and the trap was sprung. Thus, Clinton was impeached based upon a lie he told about a matter that was totally unrelated to the lawsuit he was testifying in, a lawsuit in which summary judgment was granted in favor of Clinton, because the Special Prosecutor worked with third parties to get the questions asked, even though the questions had nothing to do with Whitewater, which was the only thing Starr was hired to investigate. Here, Fitzgerald was retained to determine whether a crime had been committed by deliberately releasing a CIA operative's name. Libby was asked questions about the very crime that was being investigated, and he (may have) lied to the grand jury about what he knew, when he knew it, how he came to know it, and what he did when he learned it. To say that there was no crime, as Rush tries to, is ridiculous. There was no indictment for the crime because the crime requires a mental state that Fitzgerald did not think he could prove beyond a reasonable doubt. That does not mean that a person has a right to lie to a grand jury during an investigation of a crime, and then say "Because there were ultimately no indictments, my lies are irrelevant." If this were true, then all grand jury wiitnesses would have to do is lie so brazenly and inconsistently that it becomes impossible to ascertain the facts, and then the witnesses could all say "no indictment for the original crime being investigated, so all the perjury must be disregarded."
Good points; There is no question that Clinton was deliberately set up by a cabal of political operatives (including Ann Coulter), and he handed them his own head on a silver platter. As far as I know, Libby was not the victim of a perjury trap.
just one thing mark, clinton was not charged with perjury, scooter was. otherwise good post.
just one thing mark, clinton was not charged with perjury, scooter was. otherwise good post.
I'm confused about this statement. I thought the whole impeachment was about perjury. It certainly wasn't adultery.
There is no current issue that so blatanty demonstrates the hypocrisy of the current crop of Republicans as their double-standard of perjury. During the Clinton brouhaha many Republicans were quick to point out that perjury corrupts the justice system, and should always be punished severely. In principle I agreed with them. I also considered it inexusably stupid for a Yale-trained lawyer to lie under oath with a significant probability of getting caught. But my bottom line was that I couldn't justify removal of a US president--*any* US president--from office for a lie about a crime against his family (i.e. not an actual crime), especially when it was an obvious case of entrapment. (As far as I know the actual adultery wasn't entrapment, though I wouldn't put it past the people involved). I couldn't see the history books reading that the first removal from office of a president by the congress in over 200 years of the constitution was over a lie about a b.j. Ultimately, I think the Senate made the right choice.
Fitzgerald made it very clear in his first public statement about the Libby case what his perjury charge was about: that the less-than-truthful testimony made it impossible for him to determine whether a prosecutable crime had occurred. He did not and, as far as I know, never did, say that no other crime had occurred.
Another point of hypocrisy: this is only conjecture, but I can imagine the cries of "treason" that would echo through the Limbaugh-Hannity-O'reilly matrix if a Democrat whispered the name of any CIA operative, no matter how minor. I have no doubt that Wilson is partisan and made as big a political deal as he could about the revelation of his wife. But, isn't one of the big criticisms of the CIA that it has, over the years, lost the ability to conduct "human intelligence"? Isn't the possibility of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons getting into the hands of terrorists or "rogue states" everybody's worst fear? So how can the "outing" of someone working covertly in the field of WMD proliferation be dismissed as insignificant?
Here's my admittedly biased point of reference: Nixon's perjury was to cover up a B&E crime committed in the context of a US presidential election; Libby's perjury was to cover up a character assassination involving the leaking of secret information which, in turn, was to cover up a manufactured case for a disasterous war that has cost the US alone thousands of lives and bilions of dollars, with no good outcome in sight; Clinton's perjury was to try to avoid sleeping on the sofa.
Carlson: On the own hand, "it's not a crime" is exactly the argument that a lot of the sleazy people around Clinton argued during impeachment. "Well, it's not a crime." As if it matters. The president is supposed to be held to a standard higher than a legal standard, is he not, Mark? And so, if the vice president's, you know, colluding to leak the name of a federal employee, it's kind of bad, isn't it?
You should have highlighed this as well. He is questioning both sides.
Jenlynn: I do not really think that you are right when you say that Carlson is "questioning both sides." At least that is not the way I read it. He is asking whether the disclosure that Cheney was involved in deliberately leaking a CIA operative's name is "significant, is this going to affect anything?" He concludes that it is significant, and that it "is pretty bad" to find out that the vice-president was involved in this collusion. But I believe that he is resentful that such disclosures are coming out in this trial, and he is concluding that it is the fault of Fitzgerald, rather than Cheney, that such disclosures are coming out. That is why he refers to Fitzgerald as "a lunatic" who is "running around destroying people's lives for no good reason." Note that he does not say anything derogatory about Cheney, nor is he "questioning Cheney" as you suggest. He is acknowledging that it is an important disclosure, and he is trashing Fitzgerald for pursuing the case and thereby causing the disclosure to come out.
There goes my theory that it was the bowtie causing Tuck's lack of logic. When is his contract up? I heard there's an opening as a video store clerk in DC.
So let me get this straight....if Libby "outs" an agent who is not even covert he should go to jail, but if The New York Times publishes an article detailing ways we are traking terrorists bank accounts it's all good? This makes a lot of sense. Why are we going after Libby and not the times? It is quite obvious that more people will be in danger if we cannot use the bank system to track terrorist funds than if a pencil pusher who WAS NOT COVERT gets outed.
It is not the "outing" of Plame that has gotten Libby charged with a crime. It was the covering up and lying to Fitzgerald that is the crime. As a Savage fan, I'm sure you applauded every action Ken Starr ever did in regards to Whitewater and Monicagate, and I'm sure you believe Clinton committed a crime by lying about Lewinsky (even though consensual sex is not a crime, and his lie was not material to the Paula Jones case therefore it was not perjury, but I digress)...so since you probably think Clinton committed perjury, for you to wonder aloud why Libby lying to Fitzgerald is a problem would make you duplicitous. Just like Tucker Carlson. If you did not think Clinton was guilty, well, I am sorry to have falsely accused you of duplicity. But I think I am correct on that one...
(even though consensual sex is not a crime, and his lie was not material to the Paula Jones case therefore it was not perjury, but I digress)
I disagree with this. Clinton did lie under oath. That is perjury.
I disagree with this. Clinton did lie under oath. That is perjury.
Please let's not divorce ourselves from the facts
In order to commit prejusry you must lie about something relative to the crime. That is true. YOu can lie under oath it does make it prejury unless it is in relevance to the case
For instance I could lie under oath and say I am 15. THa is a lie. But unless I am charging someone with statatory rape or something that may age is relevant then I have not commited prejusry.
That is simply not true. One does not "swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, but only if it pertains to a crime".
What ever your personnal opinion my be of the law THAT WILL NOT CHANGE THE LAW! In order to be convevected of prejury the Lie under oath has to be relevant to the testmony you are given. wWhatever logic you what to give I gratn you however there are aspects of our law that does not follow logical forms much as we would wish. This is one.
You are right about the oath. BUT in the case of prosecustion you person has to have lied aout soemthing relevant. You can rant and rave all you want it does not change the Law.
What ever your personnal opinion my be of the law THAT WILL NOT CHANGE THE LAW! In order to be convevected of prejury the Lie under oath has to be relevant to the testmony you are given. wWhatever logic you what to give I gratn you however there are aspects of our law that does not follow logical forms much as we would wish. This is one.
You are right about the oath. BUT in the case of prosecustion you person has to have lied aout soemthing relevant. You can rant and rave all you want it does not change the Law.
I'm not a lawyer (so I'd be willing to credit your arguments, if you bothered to correct a few of your typos before posting) but it seems to me that if what you're saying is true, everyone who was a laywer and not a complete partisan hack would have said, regarding the Clinton impeachment, that there was no crime, let alone a high crime worthy of an impeachment.
Am I really "ranting and raving"?
Perjury is lying on a material matter. See the code: 18 USC §1621: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=perjury&url=/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001621----000-.html
Conversely, lying under oath about an immaterial matter is not perjury.
(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true;
So you're saying that, since the judge summarily dismissed the Paula Jones suit and therefore, no crime was committed, the testimony was not material, and therefore, not perjury? Too bad you didn't bring this up 10 years ago, it would have saved Clinton and the US a whole lot of trouble.
Actually, had you paid attention ten years ago, you'd have heard a LOT of us SCREAMING this.
There's a reason Clinton wasn't removed from office. Charges were brought, and they didn't stand up in court -- a court with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding.
I don't know think the dismisal of the Paula Jones suit made the statement immaterial becasue the lawsuit was viable when Clinton gave deposition testimony. Whether he got blown by an intern may not have been relevant to her lawsuit because she was claiming sexual harassment and the Lewinsky affair was consensual and thus would not show modus operandi or a pattern and practice of sexual harassment. However, folks will debate this for years.
Let me give you a practical example. A man named Mr. Jones is being sued by his neighbour Mr. Smith over the fact that Mr. Smith was bitten by Mr. Jones' dog. At the deposition Mr. Smith's attorney asks Mr. Jones "speaking of dogs, do you and your wife ever do it doggie style?" Mr. Jones does not have to answer the question and if he answers it dishonestly, he cannot be convicted of perjury. You cannot be convicted for dishonestly answering a question under oath if it is a question that no one had any business asking you in the first place.
Obviously this is a crude example chosen parly for its humour. In Clinton's case it could at least be reasonably argued that questions about Lewinsky were relevant to Paula Jones' lawsuit. However it was ruled by the overseeing judge that they were not relevant, and at that point there was no longer any possibility of Clinton being convicted of perjury in a court of law. (Wingnut trolls like to point to Clinton's voluntary disbarrment from the Arkansas bar association and call it a "conviction," but it was no such thing.) Why did Starr persist then? What a question. Starr was not a prosecutor at all and his grand jury existed only to find politically embarassing evidence that could then be leaked to the press. It is completely wrong and unfair to compare a real professional prosecutor like Fitzgerald who conducts himself ethically and runs a tight leak free ship to Starr in any way shape or form.
Yes! when you stoop to making comments about me correcting typos as a means to discredit an argument. Sorry I hit the Post button by mistake before I hit the Preview button Honest Mistake.
As Far as the fact that Cinton defenders making that claim, many did infact make that claim but it was shouted out. It was also the reason why he was not convicted in the Senate. My grip is people who continue to try and agrue false misconceptions when the facts are very easily proven but they choose to ignore the reality of it because it contridicts there arguments. I am tired of poeple who cling to wrong facts simply because they refuse to acknowledge that someone may know the real facts. I am sorry if I took you to be this way but refusing to believe when someone was pointing out to you that another poster was right about something because it doesn't fit with your "sense of what should be" fits into that mold. If you do not then I stand corrected.
In order to commit prejusry you must lie about something relative to the crime. That is true. YOu can lie under oath it does make it prejury unless it is in relevance to the case
(If the question were objected to as immaterial and the judge ordered that the testimony be stricken from the records, that is probably true. But that is not what happened in any of these cases).
Brrrz. Wrong.
Nobody is saying that Clinton didn't lie under oath. He was an idiot for having done so, in my opinion.
BUT... that doesn't make it perjury. All along through-out the whole Monica distraction, pundits and commentators were all over the airwaves saying how hard it is to nail someone for perjury.
And in Clinton's case, it wasn't feasible for two reasons. First, the case during which he lied was tossed out. This made his testimony, as I understand it, immaterial. That's a key requirement of proving perjury. Once the case was tossed, the perjury charge was history.
And second, of course, is that the trial of a President is more of a political process than anything else. The only punishment, as I understand it, that can be handed down is removal from office. This wasn't politically feasible for a lot of reasons, and the Senate voted against it.
You can keep making up reasons why Clinton should have been guilty of perjury, but it's a legal question, and not one based on your opinions.
You can keep making up reasons why Clinton should have been guilty of perjury, but it's a legal question, and not one based on your opinions.
It's not me making them up, it was the US House of Represenatives. Personally, I think the whole thing was a farce, and disgraceful witch hunt, if you want my *opinion*. But, I can't believe the perjury charge got so much traction if it had so little legal standing, as you say.
You're right, impeachment is a political process. So, I don't think the Senate's vote not to remove Clinton from office had any more to do with the legal standing of the charge than did the House's vote to impeach in the first place.
In the grand jury hearing of the Wilson matter, though, apparently Libby is also not guilty of perjury since no crime has been proven or indeed alleged in connection with his testimony. The trial was merely to determine whether in fact a crime had been committed. Fitzgerald is full of crap and so is the jury that charged Libby.
We're talking about consistency, right?
In the grand jury hearing of the Wilson matter, though, apparently Libby is also not guilty of perjury since no crime has been proven or indeed alleged in connection with his testimony
Ok let me see if I can clarify the point of law. The relevance has to be about the matters before the court not if there is a crime. Clinton would have been guilty of prejury if they had been investigating him about something in which his affair w/Lew would have been relevant. If they could have proven in a court that the the affair was collarborating Jones claims ( like if thier relationship was not consential or she was claiming sexual harressment then he would have been guilty of perjury) Since Lewinsky has never made those claims then that relationship has no bearing on the Jones case it is not relevent to the case therefore outside of prejury. It is not that the a crime has to be committed but that the lie has to be about the matter before the court at the time. Libby lied about the when he knew about Plames's identity which if the prosecution can proove that this was relavant to determining who leak the infomation then yes wheather or not a charge is filed, Libby is guilty of prejury. For instance, if Star could have proven that the Lewinsky affair was relevent to the Jones case then whatever the outcome of the Jones case then Clinton would have been guilty. Its a sticty point but that is what the law is about defining the boundaries of what is and what is not.
That is the they way the Law is supposed to work anyway. But we all know that sometimes the systems gets corrupted and the law gets thru out the window. As with the whole impeachment trial. No one followed the law- they followed the political agendas.
You are right about the oath but flat out wrong about the LAW concerning perjury, this is not in dispute, it is black letter law, for it to be perjury the lie MUST be material.
plame was "covert". so said the cia. i will take their word.
Apparntly Weiner fans think reality itself is changed by their baseless assertions. If something needs to be true for propaganda purposes they just SAY its true and voila to them it is now true. Factual reality is for those with the capacity to understand it, people like that dont listen to Weiner.
You are wrong AGAIN. In fact it seems you NEVER know what you are talking about. The CIA sent this to justice as a possible violation of the law against exposing the identity of a COVERT CIA agent. Now exactly WHAT is YOUR basis to claim to know better than the CIA who is and isnt covert? The NYTimes covered an action by the Bush administration of questional legality that THEY had already mentioned several times. You are so brainwashed its pathetic. All you do is regurgitate the long dead, inane, already discredited propaganda parrot talking points. We are all for the Bush administration tracking terrorist funding and siezing their assets when possible. What the heck is wrong with following the LAW to do so? When are you going to give up the pretense and tell us Bush IS Pharoah and can just do anything he wants.
Ah, Savage, there you go with the Big Lie again. No matter how many times you, Melanie Morgan and all the other neoGoebbels repeat "she was not covert," you will never change the facts. Admittedly, facts don't seem to mean very much to you, but all honorable people hold that there is a causal connection between facts and truth. Ms Plame was not only covert, she had "unofficial cover," which means she had no diplomatic protection if caught.
But Michael weiner told him so!
and he ROCKS!
Tucker Carlson?
Is that silly little man still on TeeVee?
From Savagerocks: "
So let me get this straight....if Libby "outs" an agent who is not even covert he should go to jail, but if The New York Times publishes an article detailing ways we are traking terrorists bank accounts it's all good? This makes a lot of sense. Why are we going after Libby and not the times? It is quite obvious that more people will be in danger if we cannot use the bank system to track terrorist funds than if a pencil pusher who WAS NOT COVERT gets outed."
Oddly, Savagerocks can't get his facts straight at this late date. The CIA contacted the Justice Department to request an investigation into the outing of THEIR COVERT AGENT, VALERIE PLAME. I would think that they would know whether their agent was covert or not, wouldn't you?
And the information published in the New York Times about the fact that terrorist funds transfers were being monitored, had already been anounced by White House press flacks, weeks earlier. HOW the monitoring was done was likely illegal, which was why the New York Times published a new article about it. Thanks for playing, Savagerocks, but try to get your facts straight next time. You were no where close this time.