FlaSoxxJim Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 Leopold is definately on the hot seat on this one. If his "24 business hours" didn't start until Monday, then his story can still pan out. Then again maybe Jason has fallen off the wagon and is doing lines with his sources. As one "reporter" intimately related to the case has sid, All will be revealed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mplssoxfan Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 Perjuring about getting a (legal, but utterly classless) blowjob = "Fry the bastard, impeach him!" Perjuring about committing a felony, or aiding and abetting in said felony (revealing the identity of a covert CIA agent) = "Inconsistency in testimony, of course people can't remember what they said in other sessions, they're only human after all." I'll try to remember this handy conservative primer for the next scandal down the pike. Thanks a million! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted May 16, 2006 Author Share Posted May 16, 2006 Statements of interpretation of fact are not perjury because people often make inaccurate statements unwittingly and not deliberately. Individuals may have honest but mistaken beliefs about certain facts or their recollection may be inaccurate. Like most other crimes in the common law system, to be convicted of perjury you have to have had the intention (the mens rea) to commit the act, and to have actually committed the act (the actus reus). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ May 16, 2006 -> 06:21 PM) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury That explains it then. Clinton forgot he had sex with Lewinski. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
My Dixie Normus Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ May 16, 2006 -> 05:55 PM) Perjuring about getting a (legal, but utterly classless) blowjob = "Fry the bastard, impeach him!" Perjuring about committing a felony, or aiding and abetting in said felony (revealing the identity of a covert CIA agent) = "Inconsistency in testimony, of course people can't remember what they said in other sessions, they're only human after all." I'll try to remember this handy conservative primer for the next scandal down the pike. Thanks a million! The charge against Clinton was obstruction of justice. He lied giving testimony in a cival trial on order to influence the outcome. That is far different. There was no crime in the Plame case. Every indictment has come out of what happened in Grand Jury testimony. Fitz has fumbled the ball several times against Libby and his fishing license is about to expire. This whole thing is an utter waste of time and politcal breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 How can you say the two things are completely different? The President was impeached supposedly because of Grand Jury testimony related to investigations that were originally supposed to be about Whitewater. And how much of the impeachment had to do with Whitewater? Oh that's right, none of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts