Rush was pushing this line today, too. Essentially, perjury is no big deal. Well then, why doesn't Sen. Hutchison introduce a bill that repeals the prohibition on perjury, or the criminal sanctions for perjury?
When Clinton committed perjury, I thought it was a very big deal. He got and deserved impeachment. He should have been convicted and ousted by the Senate. I'm not going to now turn around and adopt the Carville claim that perjury is no big deal. Any conservative who uses that line now (but who condemned Clinton back then) is a hypocrite.
The longest lasting troll on FR.
That's because Clinton's perjury was a deliberate lie to prevent the prosecutor from finding the truth. Here you have the potential for perjury charges to be brought because someone could not remember the precise details of a telephone conversation from a few years before, the subject of which was something else entirely, and which was subsequently corrected in later testimony. There's a big difference there.
"Essentially, perjury is no big deal. Well then, why doesn't Sen. Hutchison introduce a bill that repeals the prohibition on perjury, or the criminal sanctions for perjury?"
What hutchinson is refering to is the speculation Rove will get nailed for perjury for not mentioning his talk with cooper but later bringing it foward himself and not being prompted by anything fitzgerald said or did. Thats not perjury, thats forgetting something (especially as rove volunteered the correction)
Clinton created a false affidavit and then lied under oath to undermine a case against him. Hardly the same thing as misspeaking or contradicting something you said months earlier while being questioned for hours at a time over a period of two years without the aid of notes or counsel, as potential indictments may be based on.
The MSM obviously won't have much of a challenge in convincing you with their distortions of reality.
No you didn't. You went after Starr.
I agree with you. I heard Rush start with this the other day. Then, a caller actually brought up the hypocrisy, to which Rush responded. He even put his response on his website. But I found it very weak. I didn't think Rush answered the question sufficiently at all. As I recall, Ken Starr started out investigating a real estate deal?? By the time it was all over, it was perjury in reference to a harassment suit or something. I don't even know how it got from one to the other, but folks were happy to find any offense they could pin on the slick one. They'd have hung him for a parking ticket if that's all they could find. So yes, until someone splains what I'm missing, this looks like GOP hypocrisy.
I think Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame are the ones that should be indicted. That being said......I have to agree with you. If Rove or Libby lied under oath they should be indicted for perjury. My guess is that Bush will be dragged into this by the liberals and it will ultimately be his undoing.
of course thats true , if it is decided so by a jury.
Really? A HYPOCRITE? Why, that's about the worstest thing in the world, isn't it.
Of course it's a big deal.
Rush was pushing this line today, too. Essentially, perjury is no big deal. Well then, why doesn't Sen. Hutchison introduce a bill that repeals the prohibition on perjury, or the criminal sanctions for perjury?
Ahem -- learn to read. She didn't say that *perjury* wouldn't be a big deal, she said "perjury technicality". That is, a nitpicking violation of only the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law.
There are plenty of petty ways that someone can be charged with a technical nitpick of a law if the prosecutor wants to be a dick about it, even when the act the law was written to prohibit wasn't committed. Like charging someone with check fraud because an accidental typo voided the transaction.
I agree that Perjury IS a big deal.. Clinton KNOWINGLY lied about Monica Lewinsky. It would be impossible to "forget" being alone with someone he had had sexual relations with...and he said he'd never been alone with her..
What Fitz will have to prove...should he indict...is that Rove/Libby intentionally lied/etc. Could ROve/Libby forget meeting a reporter? forget what was said? Forget the date of the meeting? Certainly more possible then Clinton's situation. They will have to prove that any discrepency was due to faulty memory, etc.
In the meantime...Hillary Clinton was not indicted though she spoke "falsely" about the Travelgate case...It appears that Rove/Libby, if they are indicted, forgot that as Republicans,there can not even be an APPEARANCE of cover-up cause the media is out to get them..