Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rekna
I hate to bring up Clinton but he wasn't found guilty of any crime either. Neither was OJ. That of course doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed. The point of an investigation is to find out A) was a crime committed and B) who broke the law. It is perfectly fine to have an investigation without conclusive proof that a crime was committed as long as there is reasonable evidence that one may have been committed. In this case there was evidence that a crime may have been committed. Libby decided to lie under oath about what he knew and thus perjured himself. I'm sorry but to say the someone can only be guilty of perjury if someone is found guilty of an underlying crime is hogwash because if people are lying then there is a good chance that no one will be found guilty of a crime! Don't you see the circularness of your argument?
|
People have been found guilty of crimes they did not commit also.
If you read what I wrote about perjury, I used the word "material". It is not a strawman or circular argument to discuss if Libby's statements under oath were material to the investigation of an underlying crime.
Also, regarding Clinton, what was his punishment for his perjury? By the way (and I have stated this) I did not think Clinton's testimony about Lewinski was material and I would not have found him guilty of that crime if I served on a jury hearing that case.