Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich acknowledged he was having an extramarital affair even as he led the charge against President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, he acknowledged in an interview with a conservative Christian group.Still didn't make him a hypocrite, of course. Gingrich is quoted as saying:
I drew a line in my mind that said, 'Even though I run the risk of being deeply embarrassed, and even though at a purely personal level I am not rendering judgment on another human being, as a leader of the government trying to uphold the rule of law, I have no choice except to move forward and say that you cannot accept ... perjury in your highest officials. [emphasis added]Now that Scooter Libby's (high ranking official - Special Assistant to the President, donchaknow)been found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice, what are conservatives ranting about?
The Rupert Murdoch owned NYPost editorial ends with this:
Anyone else see a conflict here?President Bush should make things right - by pardoning Libby.
Sure, he'd take a lot of political heat for it. But Libby was in the dock because of politics - and turnabout is fair play.
Free Scooter Libby.
13 comments:
I see a disconnect, both in the conservative position, and in your own. If perjury is awful, bad, horrible, nasty, and deserving of many years in prison, then why aren't you demanding that this punishment be inflicted upon former President Clinton? And why aren't the conservatives demanding that Scooter Libby be locked up to keep the rest of us safe from him.
If perjury is no big deal, just part of doing business, and not important as long as it's about a rather boring little issues that very few people really care about, then why are you demanding that Mr. Libby be punished so harshly? And why didn't conservatives rejoice when Bill Clinton was allowed to get away with it.
At the end of the day, rabid partsanship -- on either side of the aisle -- makes the people who latch onto it look a bit silly. The Libby verdict is delicious for people like myself, simply because it provides the crazy spectacle of watching every last wingnut (on both sides) do a complete backflip and argue precisely the opposite of what they were arguing 10 years ago.
By your reasoning, Admiral, a kid who swipes a candy bar from a convenience store should get the same punishment as the guy who robs a bank, right? Because if theft is awful, bad, horrible, nasty...
Clinton was/is a slimy creature and deserves the ignominy he earned through the whole Monica affair; but conflating these two acts of perjury requires a significant suspension of judgement, justice, or both.
The two situations are sufficiently dissimilar not just in cause and effect, but also in motive, execution, setting, impact, and effect as to make them pretty much incomparable.
I'm no Clinton fanatic and I'm certainly highly ignorant of the law, but I have to think that the underlying circumstances of the case being investigated have to play a role in deciding the severity of the punishment for perjury.
In Clinton's case, wsan't it a civil trial in which he lied under oath--a lie about whether he had a sexual relationship with a woman?
In Scooter's case, it was a federal criminal investigation into whether a government official outed a covert CIA agent. While I know the actual trial did not involve whether he had actually leaked the name, but to lie to investigators who are trying to determine if that happened seems to be of far greater significance than lying during a civil trial about oral sex.
Again, maybe I'm being naive about the law, but, IMO, there is a huge difference between the two and the resultant penalties should weigh those factors.
Señor Shitrock, I expected better from you. The law already recognizes the clear and obvious differences between juvenile shoplifting and felony bank robbery. You set up what may be the stupidest straw-man argument of all time.
The law recognizes the difference between juvenile and adult offenders. The law recognizes the difference between a violent crime like robbery and non-violent larceny like shoplifting. The law recognizes a number of distinctions based on the value of any stolen property. These differences are enshrined in law, and carry different punishments once one is convicted of them.
Clinton and Libby certainly lied about far different things. You and I, I'm guessing, would totally agree that Clinton's lies were far more understandable and far less important than Libby's. As everyday, ordinary outsiders, we both see a difference in these two men's behavior.
But as far as I know, the law does not distinguish one form of perjury from another. When you are sworn to tell the truth, you are expected to do so. If you don't, it's perjury. There are no fine distinctions based on what one is lying about or how important the topic is. One may object to the questions being asked, but if an answer is given it is expected to be truthful, regarless of what the question is about.
I'm not convinced that there is a great deal of legal difference -- even though there are clear practical differences -- between what Clinton and Libby did.
At least I'm consistent and I don't change my tune depending on the party affiliation of the offender. I say that we should string both of these butt nuggets up by their gonads, and that the punishments should be consistent across the two offenses.
I see: My comparison was "the stupidest straw-man argument of all time", but your changing the subject to one about juveniles and and adults is deep, subtle, logic. You're just too clever for me, Admiral.
You seem to be claiming now that the point of your argument was about what the law says. Again, your craft has apparently pushed the question right over my head, you logician, you. See, I thought you your original point was that the two incidents were equivalent. The reason I thought that, strangely enough, is that your original point was that the two incidents were equivalent. Baloney. (In naval terms, that's "shit on a shingle.") They are no more equivalent than, say, an adult stealing a candy bar from a convenience store or an adult robbing a bank.
I'm not convinced that there is a great deal of legal difference -- even though there are clear practical differences -- between what Clinton and Libby did.
You seem to be having a problem grasping the obvious. There are any number of empirical legal differences that even a blind ensign could see. One was legally a civil trial, the other legally a felony criminal investigation. One was legally about a man twisting words to suit his needs, the other was legally about a man flat-out lying to a grand jury and federal prosecutors. One was legally impeached and acquitted by political enemies, the other was indicted and convicted by a neutral jury. One lie was told to avoid personal embarrasment and to thwart a political witch hunt, the other was told to cover up an act of treason.
To dismiss these as simple "practical differences" indicates either a certain amorality or the kind of stupidity that would not much become a Vice Admiral. (I do see three stars on your cap, n'est-ce pas) I suppose you might also claim that the difference between a firecracker and the explosive charge that fires a 16-inch gun is a simple practical difference; but which would you worry about abord your battleship?
Let us also not forget in terms of differences in punishment that with Clinton, we are talking about one charge of perjuy in a civil case and with Libby we are talking about FOUR guilty verdicts in a criminal case and for more than just perjury:
- Obstruction of justice when he intentionally deceived a grand jury investigating the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame;
- Making a false statement by intentionally lying to FBI agents about a conversation with NBC newsman Tim Russert.
- Perjury when he lied in court about his conversation with Russert.
- A second count of perjury when he lied in court about conversations with other reporters.
I didnt' change the topic to juvenile vs. adult crime. That was all you, man... your original comment:
... a kid who swipes a candy bar from a convenience store should get the same punishment as the guy who robs a bank.
"Kid" usually refers to juveniles. "Guy" usually refers to adults.
If your responses are truly based upon the facts of the case, then more power to you. But I honestly do not believe that you would be parsing these manifold differences between Clinton and the current case if the accused happend to be Vice President Leiberman's chief-of-staff.
If your reaction to criminal behavior depends upon the political affiliation of the accused, even if you try your damndest to disguise this fact by pouring over everything you can find to justify your own biases, then you are a wingnut. Pure and simple.
To me, it's simple. Both committed perjury. Both should get the same treatment.
Admiral;
But there's a difference: Libby was found guilty in a court of law to perjury while Clinton was acquitted in the Senate.
Surely you're not saying that Clinton should be punished for a crime for which he was acquited?
And as far as I know he was disbarred for contempt of court in a civil trial. Surely that's different than perjury for a criminal case.
Isn't it?
OK, Admiral. We agree that one of us is incapable of moral judgement.
Please keep in mind that I am very, very much not a lawyer. But as far I know, there is no legal distincting between perjury in a civil trial vs. perjury in a grand jury vs. perjury in a criminal trial. All courts -- civil, criminal, whatever -- can only function if the witnesses are reasonably reliable. Perjury of sworn testimony, in any court proceeding, is a criminal matter.
I'm not suggesting, of course, the Clinton should be punished for things that he was aquitted of. All I'm saying, really, is that most people have suddenly switched their views about just how bad of a thing perjury is. Ten years ago, those people who now think it's a very bad thing thought it was not worth worrying about. The same is true for those on the other side of the issue.
Dave's original point, back in his post, was that there is a "conservative disconnect". And he is certainly correct is saying that many conservatives have suddenly changed their story. But the exact same thing can be said about those on the other side of the political spectrum. If conservatives are twisting logic and contradicting their earlier views, then the inescapable conclusion can only be that the liberals are doing the exact same thing.
That's all I'm saying, really. It seems pretty self evident. I'm really not sure why anyone is bothering to argue that the liberal logic is just as flawed as the conservative logic.
I'm really not sure why anyone is bothering to argue that the liberal logic is just as flawed as the conservative logic.
Again we agree. You are, in fact, not sure about that. I am convinced that you will refuse to be sure about it regardless of the validity of opposing argument and the stubborn flimsiness of your own.
Enjoy your weekend.
You general premise is correct that perjury is perjury under the law. This is where I find your logic flawed though.
"To me, it's simple. Both committed perjury. Both should get the same treatment."
So I am clear, your opinion is that Scooter Libby should be fined $90,000 and then in order to end the investigation he should take a five year suspension of his law license in the state in which he passed the bar exam as a plea deal?
In addition, this should be the standard penalty of perjury regardless of the circumstances and/or whether it is in civil or criminal, federal, state, and local courts.
This does not allow for mitigating circumstances what so ever in the penalty phase?
I agree that it is quite interesting to see the disconnect in watching both sides of the political spectrum comment regarding these cases.
Regretfully, we also tend to forget that if we look at the cases specifically in the courts and not the impeachment of Clinton, because that is a separate issue on top of perjury charges, than we could discern that the mitigating circumstances are quite different. Most specifically the charges in a civil case and a federal investigation on the outing of a CIA agent's identity are two quite different cases and require different penalties under the law.
Post a Comment