"But there's no underlying crime" vs. "It's not about sex, it's about lying under oath"

[Sparkly]

Case A: Outing a covert CIA operative in order to discredit a truth-teller as part of a larger campaign to sell the country on false intelligence in order to invade another country, with the result of thousands of deaths, injuries, billions of dollars, loss of credibility worldwide, etc... A man is tried and convicted because he lied under oath -- that's it.

Rightwingers cry: "Where's the underlying crime? Lying doesn't matter if there's no other crime!"

Case B: Lying (not even that, technically) under oath to a grand jury, convened to investigate whether previous perjury was committed during testimony deemed immaterial to a case thrown out of court because even the accusation didn't meet the definition of a crime... A man is impeached, acquitted, apologizes.

Rightwingers cry: "It's not about the sex, it's about lying to the grand jury!"

Think about it.

In case "B," they insist obstruction of justice itself is a crime, even though there was nothing else criminal involved.

In case "A," the levels of crime and corruption run deep, the results are tragically disastrous, and they claim the ONE person found guilty of SOMEthing in court should be pardoned! (And of course, none of THIS rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, so no impeachment...)

The history of these two contrasting cases will have students of the future scratching their heads and wondering how the HELL this could have happened. We can only hope they learn, so that this history never repeats itself.

[muntrv]

1. Translation: Conservatives don't, by definition, commit crimes.

[robinlynne]

4. not when they hold abosolute power....

[aquart]

2. So, obviously, when THEY say "Where's the underlying crime..."

YOU say, "It's not about the sex, it's about lying to the grand jury."

It will, of course, shorten many conversations.

[John Q. Citizen]

6. I like that. I'd love to see someone do that on TV. n/t

[beaconess]

7. Amazingly, Chris Matthews nailed O'Beirne on this today

It was priceless - he insisted on knowing why she thought that Bush should pardon Libby, who was tried and convicted by a jury of committing perjury, while she continued to believe that it was appropriate for Clinton to be impeached for supposedly lying about sex. Several times, she just sat with her mouth open, unable to answer him.

I'm no Matthews fan, but he did a great job today.

[aquart]

8. Now that's a video treat I would enjoy.

[beaconess]

9. Here's a link

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17506701/

Scroll down to the box on the right with Kate O'Beirne's picture.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. Riddle me this:

If there was no underlying crime (or if they didn't at least think there was one), why did Scooter et al. lie in the first place?

Clinton lied about his BJ because that's what a married guy will do if he's accused of getting a little on the side. That's not a crime, per se, but it's not a good thing and the guy will be in big trouble with his wife. Hence the lie.

But why did Scooter lie if he didn't know or believe that he or someone he was protecting (Cheney) had committed the crime of revealing the identity of an undercover CIA agent? Makes no sense. Seems to me the very proof of the lie is strong evidence that there was an underlying crime.

[BOSSHOG]

13. Sam Seder may have answered your question last night

on Countdown.

- If Clinton told the truth nothing would have happened (ceptin hillary kicking his ass)
- If libby told the truth cheney would be on trial.

Go ahead, fuck with conservatives. Tell them that. They have an incredible hard time dealing with the truth.

May favorite fuck with the conservatives line to date:

- If Clinton (or Gore or Kerry) had been president on 9-11 there would not have been a terrorist attack because those men did not need a terrorist attack.

[Orrex]

5. Novak made a similar point on Charlie Rose

Libby's "crimes" wouldn't have occurred if this investigation hadn't taken place, and Novak argues that no investigation was necessary, since he'd already told the Justice Department who his leak was.

See? Fitz shouldn't have gone looking, because when you go looking, you tend to find things. That's the problem, and not Libby's felonious lies.

[sendero]

11. Give me a special prosecutor..

... and $70 million, and I'll find you some god damned crimes.

[sendero]

10. It is obvious by now...

.. that "moral relativism" has become the sole province of Republicans. They HAVE NO CORE MORAL VALUES, a lie is pernicious and evil when a Dem tells it, innocuous and petty when a Republican does it.

The extent to which they talk out of both sides of their mouth is astounding. They take their "base" for fools, and apparently are not often wrong.

[Joe Bacon]

12. We'll prove the crime when we find the stained blue dress

After all, if Rudy wants to do a homage to Monty Python, why not Scooty, too????