A perjury conviction requires materiality. I think it is fair to debate the materiality of Libby's statements during the investigation and the relationship to the underlying crime being investigated.
If for example a federal investigation is being conducted on insurance fraud and they ask you questions about your morgage broker, and you say under oath his name was John but the paperwork says it was Jim, did you commit perjury? On the otherhand, if you are asked about the contractor who gave you an inflated estimate, who you were going to split the insurance proceeds with, and you say it was John but it later proved to be Jim, did you comit perjury? I think there is a difference.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tecoyah
It is hard to believe Ace....that even with the amount of evidence out there, including this:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=7262723
You still believe Libby was honestly forgetful. I suppose you also think Gonzalez simply forgot everything he claims as well? These men lied in an attempt to cover the misdeeds....it seems quite obvious to me. |
I think I have an understanding of what the White House was trying to do the Plame and her husband.
I also think I have an understanding of what the prosecution of Libby is all about, given the fact that Fitzgerald knew who leaked Plames indentity and took no action agaist that person.
I also think I have an understanding of how after over 8 hours of questioning, anyone can find a basis for perjury against the most honest person in the world given this new standard.
I also think I have an understanding that the penalty for Libby's crime is not directly related to what he was charged with. Part of the penalty is punitive for what could not be proved in court.
To save some of you the effort, yes-I could be totally wrong, yes - my opinion, no - I have not listed 15 links and pages of quotes to support my views, yes-I have biases, yes - I have the nerve to question the judgement of the jury, the judge and fitzgerald, etc, etc,etc.