Don't Go There, Democrats Warn Republicans (gag alert)

CnsNews ^ | October 25, 2005 | Susan Jones

[Cindy_Cin]

With a Friday deadline looming for Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to bring charges in the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity, newspapers are full of stories about a "public relations blitz" at the White House.

The Boston Globe reported that the "outlines" of that PR blitz emerged Sunday, when Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) told NBC's "Meet the Press" she hoped the indictments -- if there are any -- would not be based on "technicalities."

[edcoil]

How come there is not more talk about how this office of the special investigator seems to be riddle with leaks? It does not appear that anyone in this office can keep the preceedings in the office as required by law.

When Clinton was under investigation and leaks were in the press the issue was not what was said but the poor and corrupt office that was allowing the leaks...

[AZConcervative]

I hate to say it but they are right. If Rove or anyone lied to the grand jury, they should be held accountable. Anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty will admit that.

[AZConcervative]

I hate to say it but they are right. If Rove or anyone lied to the grand jury, they should be held accountable. Anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty will admit that.

[ALWAYSWELDING]

Don't worry the pubs won't. They listen to the Dems like beaten a poodle.

We've been warned....we're sorry! we're sorry. Please forgive me pleeease.

[Holicheese]

I agree. If they lied that is one thing. If a date is wrong or the time of day changes that is another issue.
That is what I think is going on here.
The main issue is this: Was Valerie Plame a covert agent?
If yes, we have an issue. If no, then there is no crime.
Am I correct or am I being too simplistic?

[DTogo]

Ain't it the truth. What a gutless, useless "majority."

[Red Badger]

I'm surprised at you! The eager fetchdog press corpse was turning the attention AWAY from Clinton by stressing the leaky prosecutor. Now, they want to turn the attention TOWARD the President by stressing the impeccable quality of the prosecutor! Sleight of hand on the keyboard, camera, and radio.......

[Red Badger]

Am I correct or am I being too simplistic?

Yes.......both.......

[leftcoaster]

Can someone explain to me the differences between Joe Wilson and Linda Tripp, other than their polar opposite treatment in the press?

[AZConcervative]

I think we can safely say that there was no crime committed there. That is why the focus in recent days has changed to their testimonies. Whether or not they should have been there is no longer the point. If they lied while under oath in a Grand Jury then they have perjured themselves. I hope this is not the case, but we shall see.

[Holicheese]

Thanks bud!

[MortMan]

I agree with you, 85%. My 15% reservation is due to the fact that a prosecutor, by the way he jogs one witness' memory while allowing another's to remain unsparked, can create the impression of deliberate perjury where only human memory limitations exist.

If someone lied, or failed to fully answer a question that was actually asked, then they should be punished. If someone failed to answer a question that WAS NOT ASKED, or if they simply forgot (or misremembered), how can we honestly expect them to be punished?

[jennyjenny]

I watched Kay Bailey Hutchison on MTP, and I didn't think she was saying committing perjury was a "technicality". I took her statement to mean that someone shouldn't be indicted for perjury if they innocently misspoke or contradicted themselves.

People can see someone forgetting if they met with someone on June 23 and/or July 7th. They can't see Clinton forgetting he received sexual favors from Monica Lewinsky, not once, but on several occasions. It's about intent and that's what she meant about "technicality".

[vrwinger]

>>>>>How come there is not more talk about how this office of the special investigator seems to be riddled with leaks?<<<<<

That is, if you assume all of the 'leaks' we have been reading about are indeed leaks, and not speculation made up out of whole cloth by "journalists"...

[NavVet]

Yes, but there is a huge difference between a deliberate lie, such as "I didn't have sex with that woman". And some minor misstatement in the course of 16 hours of testimony. As a prosecutor, I can tell you that you expect minor inconsistencies and problems with recall when someone is telling the truth. It actually makes your witness more believable in some cases.

If any indictment is based on a true cover up, I would be the first to hang the offenders out to dry. But if this is a case of indicting someone because he believed that he heard X from Tim Russert and Tim Russert says he didn't say X, or some similar nonsense, I will be disappointed in the legal system.

A prosecutor with an agenda is a very dangerous thing.

[Archon of the East]

Recollection of some facts IMO doesn't warrant Perjury or Obstruction of Justice. It should be a definitive provable lie for it to be considered in a case involving no crime...IMHO

[Common Tator]

How come there is not more talk about how this office of the special investigator seems to be riddle with leaks? It does not appear that anyone in this office can keep the proceedings in the office as required by law.

It is obvious that special prosecutor Fitzgerald has not prevented leaks from his grand jury and may be guilty of leaking himself. It is a serious felony to leak grand jury proceedings.

President Bush should appoint a special prosecutor to convene a grand jury to investigate Fitzgerald and his staff in the matter of illegal leaks of secret grand jury testimony.

If indicted then Fitzgerald should be removed from the case all indictments of his grand jury over turned and Fitzgerald dis barred. Then a new grand jury and special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate the original charges.

Committing the same crime one is charged with punishing in others should carry the most severe punishment the law allows.

[You Dirty Rats]

If Rove or anyone lied to the grand jury, they should be held accountable. Anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty will admit that.

The problem is that in hours of testifying it is perfectly possible to answer a question honestly, but inaccurately.

For example, someone might ask you how you first found out a particular fact, and you answer that a particular person told you on such-and-such a date. Then, when you check, you find out someone sent you an e-mail the day before that you forgot about.

To prove a criminal case, one must show that there was a deliberate intent to deceive and not just an honest mistake. In an inflamed political case like this, though, that distinction might be ignored or shouted down.

I have no opinion on this matter, because I wasn't in the Grand Jury room. However, if Rove or anyone else deliberately said things that are not true, hang 'em.

[vrwinger]

>>>>>I watched Kay Bailey Hutchison on MTP, and I didn't think she was saying committing perjury was a "technicality". I took her statement to mean that someone shouldn't be indicted for perjury if they innocently misspoke or contradicted themselves.<<<<<

Exactly. Conversations, out of hundreds of such conversations, two years ago. KBH's point was, perjury is an intent to deceive, not a difference in two individuals' recollections.

WJC intended to deceive the Paula Jones proceedings. Big distinction.

That said, if Rove or Libby intended to deceive the GJ in this case, they're toast.