Sunday, June 10, 2007

Perjury Isn't Perjury If You Get Away With It?

We've all heard it. The most pathetic argument the right wing has ever cooked up. And that's saying something.

They think Irving Libby should skate. Because there ended up being no prosecutable crime. And no crime, no perjury, right?

O'Reilly went so far as to say that unless and until there's an indictment, you're under no legal obligation to tell the truth to a grand jury or anyone else. Apparently Bill doesn't know that "grand jury" always comes before "indictment."

Also Bill forgot that you should always tell the truth when you're under oath. And that you should always tell the truth when you're questioned by the police. In fact, I've always thought one should tell the truth...y'know...

But on the right they figure if no one gets charged, anyone who lied during the investigation gets a pass.

You see this is insanity, right? It's not just me?

The question most often asked of these knuckleheads is "What was the underlying crime when Bill Clinton lied?" Which would be a great question if these people cared at all about fairness. Or understood it.

So forget fairness. Here's what to say to these people:

"Let's say you murder someone, and I lie to the police and the prosecutors to cover for you, and they never catch you. If they find out I lied, I'm not guilty of anything? Because they never caught you??"

"Let's go one step further. What if I murder someone, and I lie and block the investigation, and I get away with it. I can't be prosecuted, even if they prove perjury, unless they also get me on the murder???"

Jesus. That is shithouse-rat crazy.

The reason there were no indictments is because Libby lied, among other stonewalling in which he participated!

If Libby had not lied, if he had been honest and cooperative and opened his files, there would have been indictments. Big, juicy ones.

Libby chose to obscure the truth. He wanted to obstruct the investigation. It would be bizarre for him to now actually benefit from his own obstruction. (Not to mention how unethical it is for his pardon to be in the hands of those whose asses he covered.)

Ironically, if Bill Clinton had not lied, he wouldn't have been in trouble at all. (Except, of course, with the missus, who would have been waiting with a rolling pin to give him what we used to call a "wood shampoo.") If President Clinton had told Starr the truth about Monica, what would the charge have been? Nothing.

Besides, everyone who argues that Libby is the fall guy doesn't seem to realize he must have taken the fall for someone. It's not like he woke up one day and thought, "Hmm, no one I work for is guilty in any way. I'd better take the fall!"

He volunteered to be the fall guy. Now he's got to fall.

in this administration has got to learn that actions have consequences.


Boski93 said...

Just when you think they have hit bottem, they surpise you.

Meanwhile they have already convicted Jefferson. Hmmm odd, he has not even had his trail yet. Now Mr. Jefferson could be guilty and if he is should pay, but who am I kidding he has D after his name on the TV so that means he hates America. Well that's what Fox tells me to think. Also that goes for that Conyers guy too, since Fox News thinks "they all look alike".

F'ers all of them. Sheep shagging asscalms.

Michael Markowitz said...

Hey, I can live with pre-convicting Jefferson. The guy did have a freezer full of cash.

But even when they have a chance to be right, they find a way to be wrong. I've seen countless Republican talking heads use Jefferson as if he were many people:

"Sure, you can name some Republicans who got in trouble, but meanwhile, you've got Democrats caught with money in the freezer, and so on, so it's both sides."

I've literally heard this construction several times, so it must be a "talking point."

Also the John Conyers thing was CLASSIC!! What doofs.