This makes absolutely no sense to me...what about you ?

[Justice Is Comin]

When someone gives perjured testimony or makes false statements, initially they are allowed to come back and "correct" their testimony?? :wtf:

What the hell is the point of having Title 18 in the first place? If you lie, and then can come back and revise your lie, why tell the truth?

It says you can lie, then you can come back and retract your lie because you were caught in a lie. :wtf: Mulligans are for golf, not for gaming obstruction of justice.

Rove got to screw us through this system five times!! If it wasn't for this, he would probably be in jail right now.

This needs to be changed. It's ridiculous.

[kirby]

1. People make mistakes and have memory problems.

Not defending Rove at all because I believe his motives are sinister, but in general, people forgot things or recall things after being reminded. If at the first inconsistency you were thrown in jail, who would ever talk? It would only encourage taking the 5th.

In this administration, I've noticed a pattern however of people correcting their statements when they realized their lies were uncovered.

[Justice Is Comin]

2. I'm not talking about innocent error where something may

truly "refresh" someone's recollection.

I'm talking about where it is clearly obvious that the person making the statement had every reason to know it was false when they made it.

This get out jail free card lets them lie knowing they have that safety net. Each level of perjured testimony should be evaluated on a case by case basis.

Individuals under oath or before congress are clearly aware that they must give truthful testimony. If they are unsure of an answer, they should testify they are unsure. No one is putting words in their mouth.

This loophole encourages lying if someone is guilty because they may only get caught in fifty percent of their lies.

Do you think Victoria Tensoeng should be allowed to come back and "correct" her testimony?

Not me!!

[BuyingThyme]

3. It's a good thing. If you make a mistake, you can fix it.

If somebody can prove it wasn't a mistake, it's still a lie, but the benefit of doubt always goes to the liar.

[Justice Is Comin]

4. You just made my point.

You just said if somebody can prove it wasn't a mistake, it was a lie. Meaning they knew it was a lie when they said it.

But then they are still allowed to come and retract their lie.

That's crazy. That would be like the casino's in Nevada being able to rig most of their slot machines to never pay off, and then only have to fix the ones the Nevada Gaming Commission found were rigged.

It's a do-over not allowed in almost every other aspect of the legal system.

[BuyingThyme]

7. Yeah, the thing that makes it so aggravating with congressional hearings

is that they're shows as much as legal proceedings, so the retractions strategically get lost by time.

But, in reality, courts of law allow you to do the same thing in good faith.

[ComerPerro]

8. problem is, you can't really prove intent. can't prove if someone misspoke or lied

[I_Make_Mistakes]

5. I agree, perhaps, people testifying under oath should review all

of THEIR statements prior to THEIR testimony, they wrote or stated it, they should know their own statements! This allows one to play duck and cover, trying to figure out what will be reviewed and covered.

I watched the global climate change hearings, where those testifying required THEIR statements (e-mails, writings., etc) being called into the inquiry to be provided to them beforehand. If something that was not listed prior to the hearing was called into account was not previously notified to the respondent, they were not responsible for answering, even though THEY issued it.

This was not some oblique piece of correspondence, it was THEIR OWN written/oral statements.

It is time that the Justice system, adapts to the same tactics used by the REPublic figures, I just can't recall the EXACT (can anyone remember every exact word spoken yesterday, let alone, last week?) words spoken?

And then no one, can be accountable for anything they say or do! The Republics will have EVERY trial dismissed, because not every word (and/or word meaning was validly stated). Oh, justice is not for the elected or rich, but for the people!

WE THE PEOPLE, Deserve the same Plausible Deni ability as Those Chosen BY WE THE PEOPLE!

The Republics true justice, ah, I think not!

[Justice Is Comin]

6. Damn right.

Clinton wasn't allowed to "change" his testimony.

We're dealing with scum here. Every other word out of their mouth is going to be a lie. It's time we started using the statutes for what they were written for.

If Toenseng and Gonzalez weren't supposed to know what they were talking about in every statement they made, I'm on a different planet.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

9. You seem to be missing the entire purpose of the perjury statue.

The purpose of the perjury statute is not to put Republicans in jail. The purpose of the perjury statute is to impel witnesses to tell the truth so that justice will prevail in the larger matter of whatever episode they might be inclined to lie about. It is not there to play "gotcha" with witnesses. The entire point of calling a witness is to get them to tell the truth about a particular episode. The point isn't to prosecute the witnesses - it's to prosecute whoever-it-is in the case of whatever-it-is the witness is there to talk about. Overprosecution of the perjury statute is just as bad as underprosecution. It needs to be there as a tool for prosecutors, without ensuring that you will never, ever have a cooperative witness.

There would be no faster way to make every prosecutor in this country hate you than to compel them to bring perjury charges in every single technical case of perjury ever committed.

By the way, you appear to be arguing in favor of the Clinton impeachment.

[onenote]

10. well-stated

[Justice Is Comin]

11. You're in left field, I"m in right field.

You're not even getting my point.

Do you think Gonzalez should be able to come back and "correct" his testimony?
Do you think Toenseng should be able to come back and "correct" her testimony?

Were they told to tell the truth when they sat down in the chair?

[Rex]

12. Why are they correcting their testimony is my question.

Are we going to allow people with 'faulty memories' to re-write what they said under oath? Because it was wrong? Doesn't that put them in a position where anything they say is suspect? Even under oath? Whoops, that 'faulty memory' acting up again!

[Justice Is Comin]

14. At last !

Someone has finally seen my outrage.

I'm sitting here watching Rove smile coming out of the grand jury room for the fifth time, to correct his testimony. That's bullshit.

Gonzalez lied. He knew it! Toenseng lied. She knew it. She even claimed she helped write the relevant law.

I'm tired of this touch football pansy game of our supposed justice system.

[Rex]

15. What is the point to having a system if you can break it at any moment?

IMO, this all started with Iran-Contra. The moment you let someone get away with a lie under oath, is the moment justice goes out the door and into the streets.

Can I do that too? If I lie in court, can I blame a faulty memory and do damage control on my own testimony? I think not.

[I_Make_Mistakes]

13. Lying is lying, and there is no such thing as "Technical perjury" in

the realm of TRUTH, for those of us non legal types. Your statement, maybe legally true, but for us dumb f**k's, lying is lying!

Clinton, in my opinion, was a liar, liar, pants on fire! I personally, like us STOOPID, non-legal types didn't think that lying to cover up a BJ was any of my business, so, impeachment was not even an issue. Clinton should have never had to testify about a sexual act in the WH, dot, period.

So, your RW like argument is not applicable, N/A. I know most of us, never went beyond the who cares if he got a bj in the WH, how did that effect me or the US?

That is the problem with the DLC, they don't, won't or can't get the lowly people's mind. I really don't care that Bill got the BJ., I am disappointed that HE didn't give us, some of us Christians, the opportunity to Judge not!

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

16. It doesn't matter.

Clinton, in my opinion, was a liar, liar, pants on fire! I personally, like us STOOPID, non-legal types didn't think that lying to cover up a BJ was any of my business, so, impeachment was not even an issue.

The law said otherwise. The law said he had to testify and he did, and he lied. Now, given what was stated in the OP, it sounds like he should have been at least tried and convicted of perjury, if not impeached. That's the point. You're drawing an arbitrary line somewhere in between Gonzo and Clinton. The OP appeared to be arguing that no such arbitrary line should exist, and I was making a case for why it was necessary.


So, your RW like argument is not applicable

That was wholly unnecessary. Personally, I think there's a very good case for kicking Gonzo's ass for lying to congress. The OP wanted to know why any person suspected of perjury would ever be permitted to correct their testimony, and the response I gave was trying to answer that question.


That is the problem with the DLC, they don't, won't or can't get the lowly people's mind. I really don't care that Bill got the BJ., I am disappointed that HE didn't give us, some of us Christians, the opportunity to Judge not!

You appear to think that I think you're stupid for some reason. I don't think that. I don't even know you. The OP asked a legal question. I tried to provide a legal reasoning and an example I thought people would identify with for why the standard is the way it is.

[Justice Is Comin]

17. Let me just bring it down to real simple terms.

Are you going to be upset if Gonzalez or Toensing gets off the hook after lying because they can say "oops, I guess I shouldn't have said that. I guess I forgot about that meeting I presided over for one hour where we talked about nothing but firing the attorneys."

Are you going to say, oh well, that's our legal system. Or are you going to be furious?

If you aren't the latter, I'll be amazed.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

18. Those terms are simplistic, rather than simple.

The cover-up is not the biggest issue here. The original firing of the attorneys is the biggest issue. The White House directing the Department of Justice to lie for them is the issue. THAT is what's most important. This is about the White House. I honestly don't give a fuck about your impatience, but if you want to trivialize the entire proceeding down to the level of perjury on the part of DoJ staffers just because that what happens to be on the teevee today, well, I can only say that I'm glad cooler heads are in charge.

Edit: I'm really glad you aren't in charge of the RICO prosecutions in New York. You'd have probably busted Gravano and called it a day.

And if all this sounds a bit harsh, know that I care about busting the fuckers in the white house just as much as you, and I don't particularly care for your spurious allegations about my attitude being "right-wing" just because I happen to disagree with you on tactics.

[Justice Is Comin]

23. I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

"Spurious allegations" ... "right wing" ?

I never disparaged you in any way, aren't now, haven't before, and won't in the future. It's not my style.

If you want argument, you'll have to do with somebody else.

[sandnsea]

20. Well they'd be lying AGAIN

Now wouldn't they? I think that's what got Libby in trouble. He didn't know when to stop lying and Fitz nailed him on it.

[sandnsea]

19. I agree

Now that I'm nearing 50, and my memory is shot to hell, I would hate to have to testify to conversations a year or two ago. I would likely not forget having a particular conversation, but the timeline?? Forget it. I'd be lucky to get any given conversation in the right year, let alone the right week or month. And I'm not even busy.

Mind you, I'm not making excuses for Libby. He's got meticulous records to remind him what went on when. Most people don't.

We end up with way too many strangulating laws because of the outside of the ordinary actions of one or two people.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

21. Libby went even further than perjury.

He was convicted of obstruction of justice. I could see someone in DoJ being charged with that if half of what we know is even proven conclusively.

[Igel]

22. People should be given a second chance.

It's truth we're after, not convictions. If they call up after the second time and say they've made a mistake, they get a third chance. And a fourth. Again, truth over convictions, when possible.

I've known lots of people who said false things. Sometimes they deliberately said something false, knowing it was false, and expected others to believe it to be true. Sometimes they were simply uninformed, confused inference or rumor with fact, or simply misremembered things. Sometimes they split hairs, so what you understood them to say isn't what they said at all; but since usually we don't remember words, just context and perceived meaning, this isn't surprising. Sometimes they deluded themselves, and firmly believed something that was simply untrue, remembering things that didn't happen.

Which of those committed perjury? And is it right to punish the others?

I consider only the first to be lying, i.e., perjury. I've known people who have said false statements. Horrendously false statements, statements that caused me grief and financial hardship. But I've never assumed they were lying unless I had good evidence of it.