Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Astrocloud
Great, so you not only think that Clinton has nothing to do with Libby, you think that he was innocent as well.  |
Never used the word "innocent", did I?
Quote:
|
Now that we have that cleared up, explain why neither Bush nor Cheney had the balls to go to court and stand up for their man. It's pretty frickin obvious that as the President -Bush has the right to classify or declassify material as he sees fit. Why do you think that instead of following protocol -first declassifying material and then spilling the beans; they just went out and told the press?
|
I don't see any reason why Bush or Cheney would need to testify.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rekna
ace the jury determined it was material and I can see why. Lying about where you heard about Plame''s identity to a grand jury that is investigating who leaked Plame's identity is clearly perjury and obstruction of justice regardless if his lie in the future would have lead to who really leaked the information. Every lie causes the prosecutor to spend potentially millions of dollars unraveling the web of lies and chasing false leads. This is definitely material.
|
Just for kicks - let's pretend you are under oath and are asked:
When did you first hear the name Valerie Plame?
Who did you hear it from?
When and where was the first time you used her name in a public forum?
Did you know if she was a covert CIA agent when you first used her name in a public forum?
If you honestly try to answer the questions and are later proven wrong, should you be put at risk to spend up to 25 years in jail? Would that be fair justice?
Quote:
|
But I am curious with your definition including "material" do you think Bill Clinton's lie was material to the Paula Jones case?
|
I did not see how Clinton having sex with Monica Lewinski had anything to do with the incident involving Paula Jones. the question should never have been asked in my opinion.