Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rekna
If you grant the person immunity from perjury in order to get them to testify what is to stop them from lying?
|
Normally you would expect there to be evidence of a specific crime, and immunity is granted based on the testimony related to that crime. When the prosecution actually has evidence of a crime and may have other sources to help prove that a crime was committed - a person asked to testify often has limited choice but to testify honestly or be convicted. When Congress is "going fishing" for something I would hope they are doing it for the good of the nation rather than for political gain. If I were asked to testify in an investigation for the good of the nation with immunity, I would share any information I had honestly. I think most people would.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
By the way, Libby's problem wasn't that he made a mistake but that he tried to pass off a lie as a mistake. That's what the jury believed. He was never on trial for a mistake. He was on trial for a premeditated crime. The fact that his defense was my mythical "inadvertant perjury" theory and that the jury convicted him anyway speaks volumes about the facts of the case. Sorry guys, I know you want him to be not guilty, but he was convicted.
|
You may be correct. I never understood or saw an explanation of what his motivation was. He did not "out" Plame, nor was he directly involved. So why lie about it?
But the point as it relates here is - materiality. Libby was convicted on an issue not material to an issue were there was no crime. That is why people should avoid the Libby trap.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ubertuber
Ace - what are you talking about? Libby said he didn't remember plenty of times. That was the thrust of his defense, and it's part of what got him in trouble.
|
Didn't say it enough, did he? He clearly should have said he did not recall the details he was convicted on.
I am not sure what you mean when you say that is in part what got him into trouble.