Monica Goodling's (Gonzalez's liason to the White House) attorney, said that he advised her to plead the 5tt, because the Democrats have set a perjury trap for her, like they did for Scooter Libbey. Perjury means that someone has lied under oath, right? So don't lie under oath and there's no perjury, right?
By the way, I remember Patrick Fitzgerald saying that he made offers, to several people, to change their testimony. Several did, but Libbey declined to change his testimony.
And I do seem to remember a little something about Libbey being found guilty by a jury of his peers. Citizens of this country, like you and I, found overwhelming evidence that he lied under oath.
2007-03-28 04:19:58 · 7 answers · asked by Crystal Blue Persuasion 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Shaft, try reading the comments before you answer the question. Please
2007-03-28 04:25:49 · update #1
Sexyquony, You must live in a different world than I do. You see in my world there is only one version of the truth. How can someone trick me into telling something other than the truth? Do borrow a perjurous comment from a former President and change it a little. That would depend upon what your definition of the truth is.
2007-03-28 04:30:51 · update #2
Ok Shaft, now explain why Libbey declined to change his testimony? Explain why people are now trying to say that jurors didn't want to prosecute Libbey? I saw the lead juror make his comments on the courthouse steps. He said that they felt that they weren't prosecuting the right man, because they felt that the real crime had been committed by someone above Libbey. See the difference?
2007-03-28 04:34:27 · update #3
Oh man, you're going to have to deal with the women for your "silly little woman's head" comment. All I'll say is that my exwife could take you, chew you up and spit you out.
2007-03-28 04:36:54 · update #4
OK, here's what I'm hearing from some of you: They did it! So why shouldn't we?
That defense sounds familiar to me. Maybe because I have three kids.
2007-03-28 04:39:13 · update #5
Patrick Fitzgerald is a US Attorney. So he serves at the pleasure of President Bush too. So how can this lawyer say that the Democrats trapped Libbey into perjury?
2007-03-28 04:42:07 · update #6
That's why "depositions" and statements are used for evidence.........What you say may come back to haunt You, especially if it is before a Court, on the record.
The Gonzales issue is a tad different I think.The Bush administration is not accused of breaking any Law in it's firings
and it would be very illogical to go on the record when the issue of executive privilege has not been determined, However unethical and however undermining the Justice System, the U.S. Attorneys serve at the will of the Executive Branch and likely not illegal to fire them.
2007-03-28 04:31:55 · answer #1 · answered by dougie 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's what they did to Scooter Libby.
They made him testify under oath about something that was not a crime (the leaking of Plame's name). Then, they found someone else who remembered one fact differently. Then, even though there was no crime to begin with, they charged him with perjury.
Let's say you are called to testify about who told you some small, insignificant piece of information years ago. As far as you recall, it was Person A. Then, Person B comes forward with notes from a conversation you had and says that he is the one that told you.
Now, this information is not part of any crime, and you'd have no reason to have a clear recollection of who told you, but you now can be charged with perjury because you honestly misremembered something insignificant.
That is why Goodling does not want to testify under oath.
This is far different from Bill Clinton's perjury where he deliberately played with words to try to tell a lie. Libby was trying to be honest and forthcoming. Or, they could pull a Hillary and just repeat "I don't remember" hundreds of times during testimony.
Do we really want a President that just can't keep one fact in her silly little woman head?
.
.
2007-03-28 11:24:28 · answer #2 · answered by Shaft 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't agree that Libby was found guilty by a a jury of his peers. Consider the jury pool in Washington D.C.
How about the juror that was a journalist, and had worked with or socialized with principle witnesses against Libby. Should he had been on the jury at all?
2007-03-28 11:47:21 · answer #3 · answered by Sgt 524 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would assume that she wouldn't be able to tell the truth since it would incriminate her, and lying under oath is perjury.
Its just a stalling tactic. She has only ensured she will be charged as an accessory when charges are brought against Gonzalez.
2007-03-28 11:26:12 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
That is the problem with perjury: it can be used to condemn people who committed an act that is not illegal, but is immoral or unpopular. It allowed communists to be put on trial for their unpopular political views. It has been used to put Clinton on trial for having oral sex.
2007-03-28 11:25:32 · answer #5 · answered by jedi1josh 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Use the words of Hillary " I Forget" 250 times and everything will be OK http://www.softwar.net/hrc.html
2007-03-28 11:28:15 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
when u lie under oath, but they use different ways to ask u a question that tricks you.
2007-03-28 11:24:50 · answer #7 · answered by sexyquonny 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋