If the indictments do not include crimes beyond perjury

[tk2kewl]

don't expect the public to get to upset about pardons

[timber84]

1. ok let me say this what was the whole point of the investigation?

it was to find out how plame's name was leaked, right? Not who lied about it?

[tk2kewl]

3. i totally agree

and if there is no underlying crime, why lie to begin with.

he better be accusing people of crimes besides perjury or the issue will fade away

[emulatorloo]

2. Good, now I am free to lie to a prosecutor and obstruct justice. EOM

[tk2kewl]

4. no, you're not. unless you can get a pardon

but if you disagree with my felling of how the public will react, why not say why?


if there are not charges related to underlying crimes, the public will lose interest and bush will get away with pardons IMO

[emulatorloo]

6. Because other than freepers, IMHO sane & reasonable people think lying to

a prosecutor and jury is wrong. They have the sense to know that if you can lie to a prosecutor and jury, the whole justice thing just falls apart. I don't care how the bush bots spin it. The public may not rise up in the streets. But they will remember. Especially if we remind them.



OTOH ( and also JMHO) I think Fitz has more than perjury and obstruction.

[tk2kewl]

8. i hope so

*fingers crossed*

[alkaline9]

16. while i do feel that perjury indictments will damage this mis-admin...

... I don't have faith in the American public to rally behind perjury charges enough to really do anything about getting BushCo out of office (which is the real goal here, right?).

I mean showing that the whole administration would lie under oath will maybe get our troops out of Iraq (MAYBE!!!) .... But with the precedent of OJ and MJ getting away with high crimes (at least in my opinion) in the public eye... another group of wealthy politicians getting away with high crimes is nothing but expected. Don't plan on there being an outcry this time around when history has proved that even people convicted of perjury (Martha?) can easily jump back to the top.

Money talks, and I'm afraid that BushCo walks :-/

Thoughts?

[Joe Chi Minh]

12. From today's Washington Post (Enjoy!):

"News organizations have complained bitterly that Fitzgerald fractured the special relationship between reporters and their sources. White House allies have warned that he will criminalize routine Washington political transactions or impute a coverup where no provable original crime occurred. But federal judges have strongly backed Fitzgerald, who presented secret evidence to persuade an ideologically diverse appeals court that someone committed "a serious breach of public trust."

You can relax again, now, tk2kewl, in Democrat heaven. No more fretting.

[tk2kewl]

15. fretting is one of my special talents

:P

[Joe Chi Minh]

10. Brilliant!

Ah, but you don't want to start a war!

[Joe Chi Minh]

5. No? I've got news for you.

They're already plenty upset enough about the neocons' monumental hypocrisy over perjury - not to speak of the last two stolen elections, the war in Iraq and all the other chicanery!

Any convictions for such flagrant dishonesty and arrant contempt for the law, particularly with such dire consequences for the people's own material welfare, would be like red rag to a bull.

I think it's academic, anyway, but "just" for perjury, they would want the book thrown at them, and the Library of Congress with it, (not to speak of the law library of the Supreme Court)!

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Joe Chi Minh]

14. I f you think Kerry just lost, you're living in Cloud Cuckoo Land.

Not surprised to see you want Clark, the Republicans' fail-safe.

[Der Blaue Engel]

25. Cloud Cuckoo Land

Ah, the land where Commander CuckooBananas enjoys such popularity!

;)

[Mabus]

7. How it works

It is called building a case. To prove a conspiracy charge you have to prove there is an underlying crime involving two or more people acting in concert. What I would say that Fitz is doing is first approaching the GJ with the crux of the matter - perjury about the outing of Plame. Perjury is the threshold issue that needs to be proven before the rest of the charges can be presented otherwise you're putting the cart before the horse.

Here's the federal statute

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001623----000-.html

18 U.S.C. § 1623. False declarations before grand jury or court
Release date: 2005-08-03

(a) Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code) in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false material declaration or makes or uses any other information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material, knowing the same to contain any false material declaration, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(b) This section is applicable whether the conduct occurred within or without the United States.
(c) An indictment or information for violation of this section alleging that, in any proceedings before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States, the defendant under oath has knowingly made two or more declarations, which are inconsistent to the degree that one of them is necessarily false, need not specify which declaration is false if—
(1) each declaration was material to the point in question, and
(2) each declaration was made within the period of the statute of limitations for the offense charged under this section.
In any prosecution under this section, the falsity of a declaration set forth in the indictment or information shall be established sufficient for conviction by proof that the defendant while under oath made irreconcilably contradictory declarations material to the point in question in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury. It shall be a defense to an indictment or information made pursuant to the first sentence of this subsection that the defendant at the time he made each declaration believed the declaration was true.
(d) Where, in the same continuous court or grand jury proceeding in which a declaration is made, the person making the declaration admits such declaration to be false, such admission shall bar prosecution under this section if, at the time the admission is made, the declaration has not substantially affected the proceeding, or it has not become manifest that such falsity has been or will be exposed.
(e) Proof beyond a reasonable doubt under this section is sufficient for conviction. It shall not be necessary that such proof be made by any particular number of witnesses or by documentary or other type of evidence.

So, if a perjury charge is submitted for two defendants and a true bill is issued by the GJ on these two charges then it opens the door for other defendants and charges.

This is an over simplified explanation but it does make sense what Fritz is doing in not overloading the GJ with every possible charge and every possible defendant at one time.

[tk2kewl]

11. so are you suggesting that there will be indictments for perjury...

and a reconvening of the GJ to consider additional charges?

[Mabus]

21. It was an example

using terms that people are familiar with and that seem to be relevant to the case at hand but the concept remains the same. Another example would be a murder trial, first you have to prove that there is someone dead (and in the cases without a body this is a little more difficult) and is dead under unnatural circumstances and not by their own hand. After you've convinced the GJ that someone is dead then you move onto whether or not the death was intentional or unintentional (which can make the difference between premeditated murder, self-defense or due to negligence). In otherwords, each crime has distinct elements each of which need to be proven for a GJ to proceed with a vote for a true bill on that indictment so that a person or persons can be charged under a particular criminal statute. You also have to realize that an indictment can name multiple defendants. What I was trying to demonstrate is that you have to prove "A" before you can go on to "B" to "Z".

Charges are submitted to a GJ so it can decide whether the prosecutor has proved to them beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime occurred and the person (or persons) named in the indictment are the ones who committed it. The charges brought under an indictment that names several defendants at one time can be severed, that is, four people could end up indicted although six possible defendants were originally accused in the indictment. The GJ can be extended or a new convened. Either way, this jury is empaneled until Friday.

Sorry, I have to go get hubby ready for a hearing this afternoon. He's a former district court judge and currently a licensed practicing attorney whose practice is almost completely before federal courts and under federal law). I have a juris doctorate (law degree) but because of my bouts of agoraphobia I chose not to take the bar and limit my professional career to do legal research for my husband and others so I can finance my pro bono work for environmental groups.

[F.Gordon]

19. Thank you Mabus

I was just going to start a thread asking questions about this. You answered a few for me. Appreciate it.
:hi:

The repukes seem to be prepping their base to expect the perjury indictments... then spinning it into an episode of the Outer Limits. I suspect the Whitehouse Fax machine is working overtime getting the spin out to all the RW preachers.

It's comforting to know that there is the possibility that more will come and that perjury indictments are the best way to get the demolition ball swinging... crashing into and destroying the BFEE.

Me.Hopes.

[Mabus]

24. It isn't as easy as you see on television

You have to build the case. Each step of which helps build the foundation for the next step. Something else to keep in mind, there can be multiple defendants named in each indictment.

I admit that I use my law degree for research purposes ranging from environmental causes to federal crimes but that I am not a licensed practicing attorney. Therefore, my ability to fully explain how the process really works is a little rusty but the point remains - no one should lament hearing that only two indictments are possible at this point. I take it as a positive sign.

[F.Gordon]

26. I rarely watch the tele

And since HBO apparently pulled Carnivale.. x(

I read the posts here... weaving in and out of the various threads trying to find something of substance. :eyes: I know that everyone is on pins and needles with this thing...but really.... a dozen posts about sleeping with another DUer to find out information. (not this thread...another)
:shrug:

I.Know.Nothing. But it seems to me that Perjury is good. When someone lies... the next question is why? Right now I'll take whatever we can get. I'm holding off on planning the party of parties... but I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

[Mabus]

31. I miss Carnivale too

I usually only watch HBO, news (MSM, PBS and BBC) or movies. I read a lot. I don't watch that many commercial television shows but the ones that I have seen dealing with legal points never really make it clear what court procedures are really like, much less explain finer points.

None of us will really know what is going on until it happens. I'm on pins and needles over this too. I've worked for attorneys and argued some cases in court (under supervision as a legal clinic intern), believe me, you never know what is going to happen until the jury speaks. I had cases that I thought I was going to lose but ended up winning on what I thought was my weakest argument. I also lost a couple that I thought I had wrapped up. Even in the same court proceeding I lost on some issues but prevailed on others.


My biggest lesson was in trial advocacy class. We had to argue a case in front of a jury. While it was just a class exercise it was instructive to me that with the same fact pattern, the same evidence and the same witnesses repeating the same lines that different budding attorneys had various juries coming back with varying pronouncments. On the same fact pattern there were four guilty verdicts, three not guilty verdicts and one dismissal of the charges because the prosecution failed to make its burden of proof (with the same evidence that everyone else used!). My partner and I did two of these class trials (because we were sucking up and the class was one team short). We won one and lost one.

I'm holding off on planning a party too. I just want what all of us should want, for the truth to come out and for those responsible to be held accountable. All I know is that, no matter what I want to happen I have to way to know what will happen.

Anyway, I loved Carnivale, it was such a creative series and I really miss it.

BTW where is this other thread. Sounds interesting. ;)

[NashVegas]

13. They Can Still Go to Jail

good enough for me.

[Francine Frensky]

17. Don't fall for their spin....remember what they did to Clinton over

perjury?? We should atleast expect the same, especially since this is an actually serious topic they lied about.

I think there is political hay to be made here. This is the first time they have potentially been caught, we should make the public aware that there are many other cases that nobody has looked into....yet.

[tk2kewl]

18. most of the public felt that what was done to clinton was crap

i'm not saying they shouldn't get nailed to the wall for perjury, i just don't think the public will care much if they are pardoned if the only charge is perjury.

It will be important to push the idea that they wouldn't lie if there was no underlying crime. And I think that will be difficult to do without at least the prospect of more serious charges being made.

[kpete]

20. raw story clarification

The sources said, however, they wouldn't rule out charges of conspiracy.

[newyawker99]

29. Hi kpete!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[emulatorloo]

22. agreed - public did think what was done to clinton was crap --- but

public could understand a man lying about an adulterous love affair.

public may not be so understanding re lying about fake evidence to get into a war that public doesn't really like much anymore.

or lying about attacking a man's wife.


ON EDIT SPELLING

[sandnsea]

30. exactly, the reason for the lie

Everybody thought Clinton was taking a personal matter into the professional. Plame is the exact opposite, making a professional matter personal, and ending up exposing a CIA operative and doing it to cover up war lies. People look at motives, not just the technicalities of law.

[Junkdrawer]

23. Sign the Conyers "No Pardons" petition here....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5165052

[tk2kewl]

27. did that already

[Justice Is Comin]

28. All you have to do is

look at republican after republican railing about how serious Clinton's perjury was, and that was only in a deposition at first. And you 've got all the ammunition you need to show how serious perjury is.

Without the effect of perjury having teeth in the law, every element of proving the crime would be impossible.