^ Lying under oath to cover up a crime is arguably as serious as the crime itself, if the perjury and obstruction of justice blurs the justice system's view of the actual crime and hampers the prosecution effort. I think we have to be careful of setting a precedent that would have criminals think they can lie about a crime under oath without penalty in an attempt to conceal the crime. I thought Clinton's perjury was a big deal and I think Libby's perjury is a big deal, even if there was no proven underlying crime. The law is the law and knowingly giving false tesimony is illegal. If we don't want perjury and obstruction to be prosecuted, we should change the law.

^ Lying under oath to cover up a crime is arguably as serious as the crime itself, if the perjury and obstruction of justice blurs the justice system's view of the actual crime and hampers the prosecution effort. I think we have to be careful of setting a precedent that would have criminals think they can lie about a crime under oath without penalty in an attempt to conceal the crime. I thought Clinton's perjury was a big deal and I think Libby's perjury is a big deal, even if there was no proven underlying crime. The law is the law and knowingly giving false tesimony is illegal. If we don't want perjury and obstruction to be prosecuted, we should change the law.

I agree, but no crime was commited according to Fitzgerald's investigation. Both were stupid to do what they did and will pay a price. My problem is with the whole special prosecutor and their track record. During the Clinton debacle Star was accused of "setting a perjury trap for Clinton and members of his team". I think that was the case then and its the case now. I think the prosecutor ought to admit if he can't make his original case and back off. You don't see too many cases of citzens being charged with lying about their whereabouts when they don't get charged with the crime that initiated the inquiry. I think this cavalier charging of underlings weakens the law rather than strengthens it. Listen to all the people that claim that "Clinton did it" and I'm sure that once Libby is cleared or pardoned he will be referenced in the same manner.

I agree, but no crime was commited according to Fitzgerald's investigation. Both were stupid to do what they did and will pay a price. My problem is with the whole special prosecutor and their track record. During the Clinton debacle Star was accused of "setting a perjury trap for Clinton and members of his team". I think that was the case then and its the case now. I think the prosecutor ought to admit if he can't make his original case and back off. You don't see too many cases of citzens being charged with lying about their whereabouts when they don't get charged with the crime that initiated the inquiry. I think this cavalier charging of underlings weakens the law rather than strengthens it. Listen to all the people that claim that "Clinton did it" and I'm sure that once Libby is cleared or pardoned he will be referenced in the same manner.

 

 

I don't know that Fitzgerald's investigation concluded that no crime was committed--I think he brought the best case he could bring given what he could confidently prove. Prosecutors do that all the time--doesn't mean that no other crime was committed. Al Capone was locked up for tax evasion of all things and I would hope you and I could agree that he was probably guilty of a bit more than that. And maybe if Libby hadn't perjured himself, Fitzgerald would have had the evidence to prove the crime he was investigating in the first place. The jurors who heard the case certainly seem to think there was a lot more to this case than what Libby was charged with.

It's called PARANOIA....

 

He and his people sure had enough of that to go around.

I don't know that Fitzgerald's investigation concluded that no crime was committed--I think he brought the best case he could bring given what he could confidently prove. Prosecutors do that all the time--doesn't mean that no other crime was committed. Al Capone was locked up for tax evasion of all things and I would hope you and I could agree that he was probably guilty of a bit more than that. And maybe if Libby hadn't perjured himself, Fitzgerald would have had the evidence to prove the crime he was investigating in the first place. The jurors who heard the case certainly seem to think there was a lot more to this case than what Libby was charged with.

 

If informing the press that Plame worked for the CIA were a crime, one has to wonder why Fitzgerald didn't charge Richard Armitage. Confidently proving that Armitage spoke to the press is not a problem since Fitzgerald has in his possession audio tape of Armitage discussing Plame's position in the CIA with a reporter. Since proving what Armitage did is not a problem, it seems likely that proving what he did was a crime was the problem. You can't charge someone with a crime if what they did was not a crime.

Was it political motivation that caused Novak to run the story?

 

Hard to say, but I'm sure some can speculate as to that with good reason.

 

I had the opportunity to meet Novak last fall when he was in town shadowing Geoff Davis on the campaign trail. Both of them ended up down on my farm in Bracken County at a little shooting event I was hosting for 75 of my closest friends. Novak didn't know what to think as he walked in and saw cardiologists, banking executives, lawyers, business owners, politicians and blue collar workers all together on the shooting line busting clays. The 2nd Amendment was alive and well that day. He probably went back to D.C. thinking: if we're ever invaded by a foreign country, I'm finding a way to get to Kentucky where I'm sure I'll be safe!

 

We talked for about 15 minutes. He's a real interesting fellow.

Hard to say, but I'm sure some can speculate as to that with good reason.

 

I had the opportunity to meet Novak last fall when he was in town shadowing Geoff Davis on the campaign trail. Both of them ended up down on my farm in Bracken County at a little shooting event I was hosting for 75 of my closest friends. Novak didn't know what to think as he walked in and saw cardiologists, banking executives, lawyers, business owners, politicians and blue collar workers all together on the shooting line busting clays. The 2nd Amendment was alive and well that day. He probably went back to D.C. thinking: if we're ever invaded by a foreign country, I'm finding a way to get to Kentucky where I'm sure I'll be safe!

 

We talked for about 15 minutes. He's a real interesting fellow.

Saw an interesting story this weekend that guns were banned in DC homes. A judge overturned that ruling this week and they said the case would be on the fast track to the Supreme Court.

I don't know that Fitzgerald's investigation concluded that no crime was committed--I think he brought the best case he could bring given what he could confidently prove. Prosecutors do that all the time--doesn't mean that no other crime was committed. Al Capone was locked up for tax evasion of all things and I would hope you and I could agree that he was probably guilty of a bit more than that. And maybe if Libby hadn't perjured himself, Fitzgerald would have had the evidence to prove the crime he was investigating in the first place. The jurors who heard the case certainly seem to think there was a lot more to this case than what Libby was charged with.

So no presumption of innocence exists in "your America"? No one was charged, no one was found guilty of the original crime. I'd say that is pretty good evidence that no crime was commited. I guess maybe we should reserve the right to lock people up on these same "feelings". I sure hope you don't have anything to do with the legal profession.

 

I think you are speaking of one juror in particular. That same juror has raised such a cloud over these proceedings he has single-handedly awarded Libby an appeal.

 

Look up the law that you think was violated before posting further. Its very narrow and was not violated by anyone.

Saw an interesting story this weekend that guns were banned in DC homes. A judge overturned that ruling this week and they said the case would be on the fast track to the Supreme Court.

Guns have been banned in DC for 30 years. Hasn't done a lot of good.

Guns have been banned in DC for 30 years. Hasn't done a lot of good.

They made it seem in the story that it was a recent policy.

Hard to say, but I'm sure some can speculate as to that with good reason.

 

I had the opportunity to meet Novak last fall when he was in town shadowing Geoff Davis on the campaign trail. Both of them ended up down on my farm in Bracken County at a little shooting event I was hosting for 75 of my closest friends. Novak didn't know what to think as he walked in and saw cardiologists, banking executives, lawyers, business owners, politicians and blue collar workers all together on the shooting line busting clays. The 2nd Amendment was alive and well that day. He probably went back to D.C. thinking: if we're ever invaded by a foreign country, I'm finding a way to get to Kentucky where I'm sure I'll be safe!

 

We talked for about 15 minutes. He's a real interesting fellow.

 

That's too funny.......Did he get out of the limo with his shoes off to make us Kentuckians comfortable?

That's too funny.......Did he get out of the limo with his shoes off to make us Kentuckians comfortable?

 

Actually, Dick Cheney was there and accidentally shot Novak, but LN is much better at covering up than those idiots down in Texas.

Actually, Dick Cheney was there and accidentally shot Novak, but LN is much better at covering up than those idiots down in Texas.

 

What happens in KY stays in KY.

Actually, Dick Cheney was there and accidentally shot Novak, but LN is much better at covering up than those idiots down in Texas.

 

Accidentally? I think not. He's trying to eliminate witnesses before the next trial.

Actually, Dick Cheney was there and accidentally shot Novak, but LN is much better at covering up than those idiots down in Texas.

 

 

Thanks for the laugh Hearsay, I really needed a good chuckle today. If I had a gun at the office, I'd have shot a few clients today myself. Been a frustrating day. Of the deals I've got going on, 3 of them are driving me nuts. Every time I think I've got the structure figured out on these 3 deals, the clients change want they want to do and I have to go back and restructure them. Two of them are very complicated, one involving all kinds of ERISA issues and the other involving some rather arcane IRC provisions. So when they change it, we have to go back and re-research everything. I'm going blooming crazy:fire:. Its days like today that I want to dig ditches for a living. I think for my mental health, I'm going home.

 

And by the way, I wouldn't cover up anything. I'm an officer of the court, remember:banana:.