Say “Good night,” frameone. We’re back where we started. I’m tired, and I’m tired of you.

That’s why the oath says “I will tell the truth, the whole truth, and noting but the truth.” But setting that aside, I grant you that the prosecutor only needs enough evidence to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. But by what measure does that not constitute the objective truth? Because an attorney left out that the fact that the victim was wearing a blue shirt, we have to wait for historians to determine the real objective truth of the matter? You don’t even know what you’re talking about anymore.

Way not to address any of my specific criticisms of your example. Not one.

“You still don t see the fallacy in your original argument that no one would lie to a Grand Jury, unless they were guilty of the crime they were charged with.”

Are you on medication? Libby wasn’t charged with a crime when he alledgedly lied to the Grand Jury. Let’s assume that Libby did nothing wrong in telling Miller about Valerie Wilson. Let’s assume that Libby believed in his heart of hearts that he did nothing wrong. I’ll grant you all that. What plausible reason, then, would he have to lie to the FBI and the Grand Jury?

You seem to be suggesting that the only way Libby could avoid being wrongly charged with a crime was to, in fact, commit a crime. How far do you want to take this insanity?

Also, I’n sorry you weren’t pleased with my example. You asked me to make one up, and I did, and, of course, you weren’t pleased with it. so my whole argument doesn’t hold water.

Of course, it doesn’t. If I could come up with another example, you wouldn’t like that one, either, and I’d still be wrong, because you refuse to get my point

Are you suggesting that this undermines the ability of the court to arrive at the objective truth of whether or not a man committed murder?

I was, and am, saying that the Courts need not determine the whole, objective truth of a matter to determine guilt or innocence. That’s why very often Prosecutors have to emphasize that “beyond all reasonable doubt” does not mean beyond all conceivable doubt.

The answer is no, and I’m not going through it again.

You, on the other hand, got an answer you were sure didn’t even exist, and you still don’t see the fallacy in your original argument that no one would lie to a Grand Jury, unless they were guilty of the crime they were charged with.

Stop calling me stupid long enough to use your head for something besides a hat rack.

“If Libby stepped over a line by lying to a Grand Jury because he didn t believe he committed a crime, then he may have committed a crime (of perjury), but he didn t lie to prevent discovery of a crime (obstruction of justice).”

He lied to the grand jury because he didn’t believe he committed a crime. Why would he lie BECAUSE he believed he was innocent?

Your example is stupid. The state of the car’s tires and the condition of the road are objective facts that do not require the testimony of the defendant to be proven in court. Hence their objectivity. The prosecutor would be able to discover and enter these facts as evidence on his or her own without any testimony whatsoever from the witness. At the same time, neither of these objective facts has any bearing on the “run” part of the charge which speaks to the state of mind of the driver. And I would argue a lawyer would want his client to explain his state of mind on the stand if he or she was scared, confused or in shock, all states of mind that might mitigate the “run” charge. Try again.

Only this time, try an example that actually explains your statement about Libby, that he lied to the grand jury because he knew he didn’t commit a crime. Explain that to me. Remember, Libby chose not to take the fifth. Instead, he chose to lie. Let me repeat that: He CHOSE to lie.

Also let me ask you this. Will we ever know the objective truth about the typical murder case that ended today or the dozens of others like it that take place around the country every week? I agree that not every fact ever gets aired in court but are you suggesting that this undermines the ability of the court to arrive at the objective truth of whether or not a man committed murder? Because if you are, aren’t you undermining the very basis of our legal system? It isn’t perfect — see the OJ verdict — but it proceeds with the faith that the objective truth is knowable by men TODAY and that it can be arrived at in a court of law.

Furthermore, if we can’t arrive at the objective truth today, why is there any certainty that a historian can decades later? Historians construct narratives like lawyers, you know. They weigh and choose evidence just like a lawyer and then they use what they want to tell their version of events. It’s the same thing. Just because a hisotrian may have more information available to them does not mean that they are any more likely to arrive at the objective truth of a case than the people who were involved and trying it.

On both points your making wildly overgeneralized statements that have little if anything to do with reality.

Here’s an example for you: You’re charged with vehicular manslaughter, and hit – and – run.

You want to testify, but your lawyer recommends against it. You want to say that your tires were worn, and it was a wet night, and you couldn’t stop in time. Your attorney says: You don’t want to admit that you were probably negligent on one count — i.e., driving on poorly tread tires; and possibly negligent on the other count — i.e., driving too fast on a wet night. Leaving the jury with those impressions could get you in really, really hot water.

How do you handle it? You don’t testify — and nobody can make you.

Are those facts of the incident? Yes.

Are they relevant?

Are they entered into evidence? No.

So, we may or may not have sufficient evidence to find you guilty — but we probably can convict you using other evidence. Do we have all the objective truth about the incident? Not from the Court transcript, we don’t

Will we ever? Maybe, if conservations between you and the lawyer are revealed in some way — by historians.

Will we ever know the entire truth about the OJ case? Or Chappaquidick? Or Watergate?

Sure we will.

But we don’t — yet.

Do you believe that in our system of law, court verdicts have no basis in objective truth?

Yes, Frank. It will require a HELL of a lot of imagination for you to convince that Libby lied to the grand jury because he knew he was innocent of a crime. Go ahead, try.

I will note how nice it is for you to completely dodge the issue of how it’s possible that Libby had to lie to prove he was innocent. I made a hash of your remarks? Go back and re-read what you wrote and tell me it makes sense. Read it slow:

“If Libby stepped over a line by lying to a Grand Jury because he didn t believe he committed a crime, then he may have committed a crime (of perjury), but he didn t lie to prevent discovery of a crime (obstruction of justice).”

You’re saying that Libby perjured himself because he thought he was innocent? He believed that he hadn’t committed a crime so he lied to prove that he didn’t commit a crime and in so doing, committed a crime? I think I will need help to sort that out. I’m stumped.

Your turn to the Wenn diagram also helps to explain just how dumb your original phrasing really is.

Let’s see if I got it. Some evidence is admissable under law, some isn’t. Judges and juries only get to make their decisions based on the information/evidence that they’re allowed to use by law. Fine. But does it follow then that only historians can ever know the objective truth of a case? Why? Just because they get to include newspaper accounts in their assessments? Because they can factor in evidence that the court initially proscribed because it was deemed inadmissable? Because a historian can take into account a confession arrived at through torture they’ll be able to arrive at the objective truth of a crime? Again, whaaa? Or are you speaking strictly about cases that involve evidence discovered after trial? Like DNA evidence? Which has never been used a court to arrive at the objective truth after the fact? Also, does it follow that the decision arrived at by a court is always different from the objective truth?

Isn’t the truth and our ability to arrive at it in a court of law, the assumption underpinning our entire legal system? And if a court can’t arrive at the objective truth why the hell would a historian be able to decades later? Historians have their versions of the truth too, you know. Ever hear that history is written by the winners? It’s just a dumb ass thing to say that some how decades of distance and a wider field of view automatically make the objective truth any easier to discern or more likely to be arrived at. Indeed, both of those factors may actually cloud the issue.

Oh and BTW, did I say it would take a week before the right started smearing Fitzgerald himself? Make it two days. Idiots.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/30/101014.shtml

In case you didn’t understand what that meant: “I don’t understand what you mean, so you must be stupid.

I won’t even touch your first comment, because you have made a hash of my remarks, and now you want me to straighten it out for you. Questions on these threads that begin “Are you saying that… ” are not questions of clarification; they are argumentative. (”If you know you didn t commit a crime why would you have to be careful about what you said to a grand jury?” Apparently, the answer to this question requires more imagination than you possess) If you really wanted to know what I meant, this is not the question you would have asked. If you are truly confused, I can’t help you.

As to your second comment, it’s really quite simple — far more simple than you make it out to be. It requires no explanation You can type “Whaaa?” ’til you get carpal tunnel syndrome, for all I care. Maybe the omniscient JadeGold or verbose Semanticleo can explain it to you, if they are so inclined.

But I will give you one hint: Are you familiar with Wenn diagrams?

Well, X’s version overlaps with Y’s version (with something of X and something of Y left over), representing all the facts presented in the Court Room.

All of X plus All of Y represents a “Universe of Truth” — the “Court’s Truth” can be no greater.

Outside of the Wenn diagram of “All of X plus All of Y” is a great Circle called “H” which represents All the Facts of the actual case, whether or not they were presented by either X or Y.

The rest is up to you. Maybe now you’ll realize that your previous comments were two of the stupidest statements I’ve ever read.

Okay. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn’t mean to actually type this. Are you saying that sometimes innocent people have to lie to prove they are innnocent? Are you saying that you think Libby had to lie to prove he was innocent? If you know you didn’t commit a crime why would you have to be careful about what you said to a grand jury? If you believe you are innocent of a crime how would lying help you prove it? How does any of this make any sense whatsoever?

“Lawyers and judges may arrive at version # 3, but it takes historians something like a generation or more to arrive at truth version # 4, and sometimes it never happens.”

The same here. You couldn’t have possibly meant to type this. Are you saying that it will be decades, if ever, before we can know with any certainty that most people in prison or on death row are actually guilty? Furthermore, are you saying that historians are the only people who have access to objective truth? Whaaa?

These are two of the stupidest statements I have ever read.

But I can think this: If I don’t think I committed a crime, I will be very careful of what I say to a Grand Jury, so they don’t think I did.

If Libby stepped over a line by lying to a Grand Jury because he didn’t believe he committed a crime, then he may have committed a crime (of perjury), but he didn’t lie to prevent discovery of a crime (obstruction of justice).

My own philosophy of law is that when two people, X and Y, go into Court, there is X’s version of the truth, Y’s version of the truth, and the version of the truth the Court arrives at. Finally, there is the real, objective truth.

Lawyers and judges may arrive at version # 3, but it takes historians something like a generation or more to arrive at truth version # 4, and sometimes it never happens.

You’re right. Libby is innocent until proven guilty. I never meant to suggest otherwise. What I meant to say is that the legal definition of perjury is, per Hedley, lying under oath about material facts, and that’s all the requirements, as far as I know, that a prosecutor has to meet in order to bring a charge of perjury. He doesn’t have to also prove that the initial crime under investigation was a serious crime. You seem to be insisting that he does, which is bullshit. Or else you are talking about the penalty phase of a perjury case which is, again, totally irrelevant to this discussion. A judge has the discretion to hand down whatever penalty he or she wants wihtin the range provided. I agree with that which is one reason why I’m oppossed to three strikes laws: they take the power of discretion out of a judge’s hands. BUt that has nothing to do with whether or not Fitzgerald proved to the grand jury that he had sufficient evidence to bring a charge of perjury and obstruction against Libby. Clealry, Fitzgerald made his case and the gran jury approved it. How Libby will eventually be found or what his penalty will be has no bearing on the discussion of whether these indictments are valid. Why you’re even bringing it up is beyond me. You’re jumping to a hypothetical argument about a phase of the trial, if there even is a trial, that’s probably two years away. If a judge gives Libby a slap on the wrist does that mean perjury isn’t a serious crime? If Libby is found innocent does that mean Fitzgerald never should have brought the charges in the first place? Not all. Fitzgerald answered all this in his press conference when he said this:

“That talking point won’t fly. If you’re doing a national security investigation, if you’re trying to find out who compromised the identity of a CIA officer and you go before a grand jury and if the charges are proven — because remember there’s a presumption of innocence — but if it is proven that the chief of staff to the vice president went before a federal grand jury and lied under oath repeatedly and fabricated a story about how he learned this information, how he passed it on, and we prove obstruction of justice, perjury and false statements to the FBI, that is a very, very serious matter.
And I’d say this: I think people might not understand this. We, as prosecutors and FBI agents, have to deal with false statements, obstruction of justice and perjury all the time … When I was in New York working as a prosecutor, we brought those cases because we realized that the truth is the engine of our judicial system. And if you compromise the truth, the whole process is lost. If these facts are true, if we were to walk away from this and not charge obstruction of justice and perjury, we might as well just hand in our jobs. Because our jobs, the criminal justice system, is to make sure people tell us the truth. And when it’s a high-level official and a very sensitive investigation, it is a very, very serious matter that no one should take lightly.”

You can argue with me all you want but why don’t you try arguing with what Fitzgerald actually said. Read this statement again and tell me how he’s overstepped his bounds in bringing these charges against Libby. Tell me that he doesn’t believe perjury is a serious crime no matter what initially sparked the investigation.

You can parse it all you want but you still have to parse it because neither one of you can talk directly about what these indictments are about. Fitzgerald is indeed charging that Libby both knowingly lied and that he knowingly lied about information material to the crime under investigation — the leaking of classified information. The crime under investigation was whether or not Valerie Wilson’s CIA job was leaked to the press. Fitzgerald says her status was classified and that Libby leaked it. Libby lied about the fact that he gave her name and job to reporters when he told the FBI and the grand jury that reporters gave her name and job to him. He told the exact opposite of the truth repeatedly and Fitzgerald says he can prove that Libby did it knowingly. Hence the perjury charge. As to that final point that “you re off the hook for perjury if a subsequent statement in the same proceeding corrects an otherwise perjurious statement I assume that this is why Rove revisted the gj so many times and why, indeed, he isn’t being charged with perjury or obstruction — yet. He went back to correct his testimony. Libby apparently did not. Why? Who knows. Does it matter? Not really. He let his lies stand and now he’s being charged.

Let’s look at Frank’s example more precisely. If someone commits perjury it doesn’t matter whether they are lying knowingly about the material facts of a traffic violation or hit and run. It’s still perjury, right? It’s still two charges now instead of one, right? Let’s say your car’s license plate gets photographed as you run a red light. Taking the case to court you say under oath that you weren’t driving the car because it was stolen. But then the prosecutor delivers evidence that proves in fact it was you driving the car. Guess what? You just added perjury to your list of charges. You lied knowingly about a material fact of the charge against you under oath. I suppose it’s up to the judge and prosecutor’s discretion as to whether to charge with perjury but you still committed perjury in the eyes of the law. What’s so hard to see about that?

Of course in the actual case in hand, Fitzgerald is charging that Libby knowingly lied under oath about the material facts in a matter of national security. As I understand it, in a court of law, Fitzgerald will have to prove each one of the first three points: Libby kowingly lied under oath about facts material to the crime under investigation. The law doesn’t say that the crime under investigation has to be a serious one. Does it? Fitzgerlad will also, presumably, argue that this is a serious case about national security probably because one of the defense arguments wil be “no harm no foul” but that doesn’t have anything to do with the actual facts of the perjury charge. The defende will try to sway the jury toward making an “extra-legal” decision: He perjuried himself but so what. If, however, the jury sticks to the facts at hand in making its decision, whether the initial crime was about national security or not won’t matter. But Fitzgerald will tell themto stick to the facts as well as argue that its a serious matter of national security.

Here’s the bottom line: Through out the Clinton scandal, conservatives had to repeat over and over “It isn’t about the sex, it’s about the lying.” Great. Bully for them. Defenders of Fitzgerald’s indictments, however, have the pleasure of saying “It’s about national security AND the lying.” What’s more. in one bravura press conference, Fitzgerald swept aside every single talking point spouted by just about every conservative asshole who commented on the investigation. Idiots like Frank continue on without pause, however, reduced now to attacking Fitzgerald himself implying that he’s “out of control.” First, they’ll take a stab at bullshit legal parsing that Libby’s lies weren’t that big a deal so why bother or that there was no initial crime to knowingly, materially lie about in the first place — both of which are patent bullshit. When that doesn’t fly it’ll get ugly. They’ll resort to attacking his political and personal life. So don’t give me any other bullshit about my language. I give a week before we start hearing ugly rumors about Fitzgerald’s personal life or that he once shared a cab with someone who voted for Kerry. And Frank, you’ll still be an idiot.

Bubba was DISBARRED for it, and more importantly, he dragged the country through his mud for 2 years trying to cover it up. The whole time the leftist were screaming at the prosecutor!

Flash to the present:

A republican assistant is indicted for lying under oath. He immediately resigns to defend himself without defiling his office or responsibility. The republicans almost to a person, condemn lying under oath. No talk about why he lied etc etc.

But now the back story….If the Wilson/Plame’s were so concerned about her cover, perhaps they could have been a bit more circumspect themselves? I would love to Valerie investigated for nepotism and fraud and she foist’s her husband and his cheap-jack “consultant firm” off on the CIA as some sort of expert on Nigeria.

Just like the leftist, stand around throwing mud and then shriek when they get dirty