Posted on 02/02/2006 11:32:04 AM PST by hipaatwo
False testimony can be a crime of its own right, independent from finding, even independent from charging an underlying crime.
Absence of an illegal leak will not excuse false testimony.
Lying about a crime, the accusation against President William Jefferson Clinton, has itself been a crime since the time of Hammurabi.Then, it was punishable by death. Today, perjury is punishable in federal courts by a fine and up to five years of prison for each count.
Then and now, the theory has been essentially the same: If people are allowed to lie during the investigation of a crime, the crime cannot be proven. It may go unpunished or an innocent person might be wrongly punished.
That is why perjury has never required proof of an underlying crime. Without access to the truth, there may be no way to show the underlying crime. (A perjury indictment unaccompanied by a charge of an underlying crime remains, nonetheless, controversial because critics sometimes see it as the product of a failed probe.)
Perjury, the Supreme Court has said, is "an obvious and flagrant affront to the basic concepts" of justice.
http://www.hypocritae.com/?ART=179
Fred Barbash | Washington Post | August 16, 1998
He did. Motions to compel discovery were filed on Jan 23 & Jan 26, I think. A hearing is scheduled for today.
I think these letters give you the answer to that question. Libby wasn't charged with those things because the prosecuter never collected information to determine whether any of those things were true.
Which is why we are discussing it here, since last october his "speech" made it sound like he had determined truth, and that WAS what he was hired to do. So why didn't he do his job, and why in October did he say her identity was classified, if now he admits that he never did any investigation to determine if her name was classified?
Yesterday I watched Fitzgerald's October press conference again. He is strictly defending his call to prosecute Libby for lying, using all the rhetoric that we would use if, say, Hillary was caught lying to a GJ.
He totally side-stepped mentioning that the lies have to be pertinent to the investigation. A witness can lie about the weather or the schoolwork of his children all he wants, for example.
He declared as fact that Ms Plame was in a "classified" position at CIA. The statute that would make Libby's alleged lies pertinent does not focus on "classified" employees, but "covert" employees.
I am sure that Ms Plame retained her "classified" status so that she could retire with higher benefits. I will never believe that a covert agent would
a) use her cover company name to contribute to a Presidential Candidate's campaign, or
b) allow her husband to write an incendiary article for the New York Times.
I agree with your statement. My contention is that the questionable statement has to be material to the investigation.
He Fitzgerald was charged with finding out who leaked a covert agents name, why because leaking a "covert" agents name is a crime.
His first step is to find out if Plame was a covered "covert" agent, if she was not, investigation is stopped, Period.
That is all I'm saying.
His letters to defense counsel indicate that this was not his first step.
In fact, from the top down (President, CIA, DoJ), the "official" status of Plame remains uncertain.
Strikes me as weird too, FWIW. If there is a case for malicious prosecution, Miller could have brought the charge too - she was in jail for refusing to testify.
Thanks, as Rush says - You can't make this stuff up.
Reggie Walton.
Couldn't agree more. I guess we'll just have to stay tuned and watch as this unfolds.
It hasn't been adjudicated, but one can read the details of the charge in the indictment.
A radical "snipping" of the indictment, aiming to distill it to is essential points ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1569428/posts?page=70#70
It will be a federal grand jury. As such, it will be pulling from the more conservative suburbs as well.
It's going to take awhile, I think. Regardless of the ruling on defens motions for deiscovery, either side is apt to appeal.
I've been looking for cites to cases where a perjury conviction stood, with "no underlying crime." The runaway bride story (Wilbanks) came to mind. Running away isn't criminal, so how could lying about it be?
And in Clinton's civil case with Jones, where Jones sought to introduce Lewinski. AN affair with Lewinski isn't a crime, so how can lying about it be?
The government need not prove the legitimacy of the grand jury's investigation which led to the testimony, only the pertinence of the particular testimony to the grand jury's investigation. United States v. Regan, 103 F.3d 1072 (2d Cir. 1997)http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01748.htm
Furthermore, testimony may be material even if it relates to events as to which the statute of limitations has run, since the grand jury may have legitimate reasons to inquire about such events aside from an expectation of returning an indictment charging those events as crimes. United States v. Chen, 933 F.2d 793, 797 (9th Cir. 1991); United States v. Nazzaro, 889 F.2d 1158, 1165-66 (1st Cir. 1989).http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01748.htm
Is there not a distinction between whether his statements to the GJ were "accurate" and whether or not he intentionally mislead the GJ?
The grand jury has already issued the indictment.
Will the trial jury pool be drawn from the suburbs, as well?
It's not that suburban D.C. could be construed as "conservative", any way. But it might be a little less racist.
Not really. Though they do have to be shown to be knowingly inaccurate.
The Fitzpatrick legal team did not just wing it. They have crafted a case that they know will be hard to undo. The defense will try to undo it, but that won't be a trivial matter and it won't hinge on some revelation document in Fitzpatrick's possession. His team went through all those documents. They know what is in them and they know they will not interest a jury.
They may interest a judge. A judge might be willing to make a call that there was no underlying crime to investigate, but judges are also reluctant to undo the work of a GJ.
Bottom line: the current flurry of stories will be of zero interest to a jury if and when the case gets to them. At that point there will be a different defense. Any attempt by the defense to tell the jury there was no crime will be quashed by the judge of the trial, saying that the jury is not to consider any such thing and that the case is about a very strict and narrow matter.
Unless the charges are dropped, I think it will go to trial. Libby is a smart lawyer who ha superb criminal lawyers representing him. They seem to be attacking Fitzgerald's case very aggressively.
Hi, McGavin. I agree with you. The only good thing about all this is the fact that Libby and his lawyers appear to be putting up one heck of a fight.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.