[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.

[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?

[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.

[lugsoul]

Whoops - strenuous.

[Cindy_Cin]

Lets see ........
There was no crime but Rove should be persecuted for not remembering the details of a conversation that may or may not have occurred?
Rove should be punished for covering up the crime that never was?
You're kidding right?

[RightFighter]

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.

You are right. However, what makes a lie? Clinton lied with the intent to deceive. It may be that Rove and/or Libby said something that was untrue, but it appears from everything I've read that when they were offered evidence that showed them the actual dates/times/etc., they "refreshed their recollection" and filled in the details of the story. Getting a date or a minor detail wrong is not a lie if the inconsistency is not deliberate. Proving an intent to deceive is hard to do. It appears, at least on the surface, that Rove and Libby have cooperated fully with the investigation.

[BenLurkin]

This is the difference between conservatives and the anti-American crowd.

We want to see clean government.

They, on the other hand, don't care how corrupt their people are -- just so long as they continue in power.

The dark Clintoon years were an unforgettable demonstration of this fact.

[Sender]

I agree, if Rove or Libby lied deliberately to the grand jury then they should face the penalty and step down immediately.

Even though this whole tempest in a teacup is a witch hunt over a non-crime about a non-spy married to a non-inspector.

[duckln]

Anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty will admit that.

Ever hear of a 'kangaroo' court?

[Texas Songwriter]

I agree with you. If Rove/Libby lied they should be held accountable if it can be prooved beyond a reasonable doubt that they lied. The problem I see is the question of a disparate memory. Does Rove differ from other accounts because they have had 1 million conversations and they are blurring or is there such a thing as memory failure.

And while I am at it does Fitzgerald accept accounts of the news reports and reporters as the standard? Did reporters lie? If you ask 2 people the same questions long enough their replies will diverge, if only slightly.