White House mum on Karl Rove

He did, which is what makes it hillarious. Even when asked if he, personally, had consulted an attorney - he didn't answer.

Read the transcript - it's a good read

Yes, condescending much. AND absurd much. I'm glad you've noted that it's absurd. I shouldn't have to educate anyone on basic points of law (that you too could google for). I thought they still taught the basics, but hey, maybe they dropped it from curriculum, it's been awhile.

Anyway, "Perjury" or "Contempt" as it was in Clinton's case merely defines which set of laws, precedents, and decisions one will use to address guilt or punishment in a given case. This is why many punishments have an acceptable range within which you can assign fines or jail time. In many cases, too, you can have punishments outside these ranges as well (both above or below as appropriate) depending on these shades of grey that you refuse to acknowledge. You may do well to note that Clinton wasn't punatively fined for anything by the court. The scope of his 'punishment' for Contempt merely extended to paying the reasonable attorney fees for Jones (which were around 89k) and Arkansas (which were around 1k). If he had faced punative charges, he could have faced jail time, punitive fines that have nothing to do with court costs, or both (along with attorney and court fees). But as it stands, all he did was piss off the court for being evasive in discovery.

Trust me, I'm not the one who needs education in the "basics" here.



Which means what exactly?

Sorry, like I've said before, we are going to have to agree to disagree - I will not, ever, buy into the notion that because someone is able to avoid maximum punishment for a crime that the crime is ok, nor will I ever buy into the notion that a crime is mitigated by the fact that there are worse crimes out there. That is what is absurd to me.

Understand?

It's not that I don't understand what your trying to say - over and over again -, but I don't accept it. I've been brought up to respect law and the judiciary process, and the blatent contempt for it that your attitude shows is, well... frankly, it's a little disturbing to me.

You focus on the punishment that the court hands down. But to me, thats almost irrelivent to the concept of "law", and it certainly often has little to do with justice. Since you want to break into the absurd, do you think murder is ok because OJ probably got away with it? (Yes, I'm saying I think OJ is guilty, regardless of what the court decided. That's my personal opinion). You've already said no. But to me this is the exact same thing - the crime is still wrong, regardless of if the courts gave it a pass.

Note that I say I respect the judiciary process. The final results can be flawed; the judges and jury are only human, the jury often unfortunatly so. But if we have no respect for the process, we make a mockery of the concept of justice.

If you've been trying to 'figure out where I'm comming from', this is where. I think that perjury is making a mockery of the entire judiciary system. I find it offensive.

I restate, Clinton had options. He did not have to commit perjury. He chose to make a mockery of the process of law, something that as President of the United States of America he should have had the utmost respect for and been trying to uphold. I find that repulsive in the extreme.

Ok? You can stop making your hillarious comparisons to me thinking that we should chop kids hands off and stuff. No need to drag your name throught he mud like that. There's my view. That's the sum total of my view. I'm not going to appologise for it or change it, because it is my firm belief that I am right (Yes, I'm going to be an arrogant ass about it), and you cannot "educate me" out of it, because my belief is based on my education.

1. ·“In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney’s office had questions about a particular intelligence report. … The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president’s office.”(Joseph C. Wilson, Op-Ed, “What I Didn’t Find In Africa,” The New York Times, 7/6/03)
   
2. BLITZER: I know you were sent to go on this mission long before the State of the Union Address. When Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, was on this program a few weeks ago, on July 13th, I asked her about your mission. Listen to this exchange I had with her.
   
   
   
   (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
   
   
   
   DR. CONDOLEEZZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: I didn't know Joe Wilson was going to Niger. And if you look in Director Tenet's statement, it says that counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, sent Joe Wilson. So, I don't know...
   
   
   
   BLITZER: Who sent him?
   
   
   
   RICE: Well, it was certainly not at a level that had anything to do with the White House.
   
   
   
   (END VIDEO CLIP)
   
   
   
   BLITZER: Is that true?
   
   
   
   WILSON: Well, look, it's absolutely true that neither the vice president nor Dr. Rice nor even George Tenet knew that I was traveling to Niger.
   
   
   
   What they did, what the office of the vice president did, and, in fact, I believe now from Mr. Libby's statement, it was probably the vice president himself...
   
   
   
   BLITZER: Scooter Libby is the chief of staff for the vice president.
   
   
   
   WILSON: Scooter Libby.
   
   
   
   They asked essentially that we follow up on this report -- that the agency follow up on the report. So it was a question that went to the CIA briefer from the Office of the Vice President. The CIA, at the operational level, made a determination that the best way to answer this serious question was to send somebody out there who knew something about both the uranium business and those Niger officials that were in office at the time these reported documents were executed..”(CNN’s “Late Edition,” 8/3/03)
   
3. Vice President Cheney: “I Don’t Know Joe Wilson. I’ve Never Met Joe Wilson. … And Joe Wilson - I Don’t [Know] Who Sent Joe Wilson. He Never Submitted A Report That I Ever Saw When He Came Back.”(NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 9/14/03)
   
4. CIA Director George Tenet: “In An Effort To Inquire About Certain Reports Involving Niger, CIA’s Counter-Proliferation Experts, On Their Own Initiative, Asked An Individual With Ties To The Region To Make A Visit To See What He Could Learn.” (Central Intelligence Agency, “Statement By George J. Tenet, Director Of Central Intelligence,” Press Release, 7/11/03)
   
5. “[Wilson] Believed That [His Report] Would Have Been Distributed To The White House And That The Vice President Received A Direct Response To His Question About The Possible Uranium Deal.”(Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04)
   
6. The Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Reported That The Vice President Was Not Briefed On Wilson’s Report. “Conclusion 14. The Central Intelligence Agency should have told the Vice President and other senior policymakers that it had sent someone to Niger to look into the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal and it should have briefed the Vice President on the former ambassador’s findings.”(Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04)
   
7. CIA Director George Tenet: “Because This Report, In Our View, Did Not Resolve Whether Iraq Was Or Was Not Seeking Uranium From Abroad, It Was Given A Normal And Wide Distribution, But We Did Not Brief It To The President, Vice-President Or Other Senior Administration Officials.” (Central Intelligence Agency, “Statement By George J. Tenet, Director Of Central Intelligence,” Press Release, 7/11/03)
   
8. Wilson Claimed His Wife Did Not Suggest He Travel To Niger To Investigate Reports Of Uranium Deal; Instead, Wilson Claims It Came Out Of Meeting With CIA. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “Among other things, you had always said, always maintained, still maintain your wife, Valerie Plame, a CIA officer, had nothing to do with the decision to send to you Niger to inspect reports that uranium might be sold from Niger to Iraq. … Did Valerie Plame, your wife, come up with the idea to send you to Niger?” Joe Wilson: “No. My wife served as a conduit, as I put in my book. When her supervisors asked her to contact me for the purposes of coming into the CIA to discuss all the issues surrounding this allegation of Niger selling uranium to Iraq.” (CNN’s “Late Edition,” 7/18/04)
   1. But Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Received Not Only Testimony But Actual Documentation Indicating Wilson’s Wife Proposed Him For Trip. “Some CPD, [CIA Counterproliferation Division] officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador’s wife ‘offered up his name’ and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador’s wife says, ‘my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.’” (Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)
      
   
   

As you can see above in one of the quotes, which is from the show you reference, Blitzer gives Wilson the opportunity to make it clear, as to whether or not he was sent by someone at or close to the Whitehouse. As you can see, he muddled the water further with an ambiguous language answer, politician style. Notice how Rice, Tenet, and the VP in these quotes all felt it was necessary to set the record straight on multiple occasions, to refute the misinformation that Wilson was spreading.

And again, bottom line is, the real perpetrator is yet to be revealed, is probably tied diretly to Judith Miller, and is neither Matt Cooper, Bob Novak, or Karl Rove. Stop nitpicking Rove. Go nitpick Miller and the NY Times.

Joe Wilson's misinfo, is well well well established. Cut it out now, silly.

Reitsuki Kojima..... you have to realise, not everyone thinks as much as you, and many are more prone to feel their way through life. This is what leads to these irrational behaviors and lines of reasoning you are dealing with. You could call it antireason perhaps.

Good job making sense yourself though. Although, I'm sorry to say, your perfectly logical and sensible words are falling on blind eyes.

"Firm beliefs" and morality have no place in a modern courtroom (nor does justice, which can be bought with a great lawyer). I'm sorry that bothers you to such an obvious extent. I hope you never get sued. If you ever take a moment or two to read the findings in the Clinton trial, you'll see that he did not lie (or perjur himself). In a very lawyer-like way he stuck to his own definitions until new ones were laid out for him. He never offered up information they weren't asking either. Neither is "wrong" as far as law goes and he could have certainly appealed the court's decision and sought fees from the state or plaintiff if he wanted to. But obviously it wasn't worth his time, money or effort. I guess I don't really find your repulsion of a lawyer suprising. But I, at least, can respect that he managed to respond to all the questions put to him without outright contradicting himself. This makes him a competant lawyer. I've seen many lawyers and witnesses who do wind up contradicting themselves, and it is embarrassing and stupid. The only case I've seen thus far where someone directly set out to mock the process was when some guy went into the courtroom and shot the judge. I'm sure there are others, but I'm not aware of any initiated, by lawyers, who intended to mock their own profession in the courtroom.

And to people who want to jump on the bandwagon, by all means, but you can correct yourselves fairly easily with a quick search and a little enlightenment into the case, and the relevant laws.

I just have a question. It's an honest one. Are you able to debate without being condescending?



Ah yes, the famous "Well, it depends what you mean" excuse. Sorry, no, I don't buy it, and I don't buy the Clinton Apologist story that he was acting under his "own definitions"... It was deliberate evasion. This is the only excuse that the CA's can ultimatly fall back on, and it sounds more and more hollow every time I hear it redefined into a more nobel, legalistic language.



It's easy when you lie.



Which is why he lost his liscense to practice law as a result of it, right?



You and I vastly disagree on what constitutes a mockery of the system. I'm increasingly glad for that.

A new law should be written. You lie you are removed from office. I don’t care if you’re a Republican or a Democrat. Maybe if we removed the losers things would get better.

Say Lupo, what if you lie about someone lying, they get booted, and no one knows you lied about the original liars? hmmmm....

If we find out you lie we remove you from office. I say lying your out. But it must be proven you lied. Right now we don’t know other then people just saying they believe that GWB or any one in his staff has lied. If we find out then OUT they go.

I wonder who "we" is. I wonder what constitutes proof of a lie. What if you "lie" on accident? As in, what if you unknowingly state something untrue? What if you accidentally lie with good intentions? (Most people call that making a mistake, but your detractors will often accuse you of lying in such a case.)

What if in like the case of Karl Rove, you say you weren't involved in leaking a covert agent's identity, and it turns out that you didn't have any involvement in the leaking of an identity? But then enough of your detractors (who claim to be impartial, i.e. the media) repeat the phrase "He lied! He lied!" such that by and large it becomes "truth". And the public (presumably the "we" in your statement) decides you must go?

Then it is the "we" who are guilty of being dishonest.

Lying would be defend as “”Purposely deserving with a untruth” That means Lies of omission and fibbing would be ok.
Lie of Omission would be defend as “Not telling all the information to deserve”
Fibbing would be defend as “Not telling the truth to put you off the track for a given time ie no we have no intention in throwing you are party for your birthday…….. week later surprise!::

Well right now the House holds the Impeachment and if the Impeach you then the Senate will hold a trial to remove you from office. So they will do it for lies too.

Yes. I utterly am not inclined to, however, when dealing with someone who equates lying about a BJ to lying about murder.


[QOUTE]Ah yes, the famous "Well, it depends what you mean" excuse. Sorry, no, I don't buy it, and I don't buy the Clinton Apologist story that he was acting under his "own definitions"... It was deliberate evasion. This is the only excuse that the CA's can ultimatly fall back on, and it sounds more and more hollow every time I hear it redefined into a more nobel, legalistic language. [/QUOTE]

Buy what you want. I won't apologize for him and wouldn't pretend to and haven't been. I'm just pointing out it wasn't as big a deal as it is made out to be. Our opinions don't change the final results of the case, that it wasn't a big deal. He didn't fight the decision, the fine, or the separate decision by the Arkansas Bar. He could have, but he didn't. All of these things point out that it wasn't important enough for him to pursue either due to costs, political impact, or just a distraction from his job at the time. From a historical standpoint, I am largely impressed that, as a man, he got a sexual harrassment case against him dismissed. Those things usually go the other way.



I think that largely stems from your inclination to project your moral value system onto a legal system that largely has no use for your system. The legal system doesn't care if someone SHOULD be guilty, only if they are proven so. Similiarly, the system doesn't care if it is mocked until it is proven to be mocked. And in all cases there are degrees of severity to which all of that applies.

Now as to my own values, which have nothing to do with the system; I think it is horrible when politicians lie deliberately to get their own way. However I also recognize and accept that my friends will also lie about BJs and I shouldn't be asking anyway. I am also of the personal opinion that the mechanism that permits politicians to boldly lie in campaign ads is very wrong. I also think equating lying about sex acts to lying about murder is one of the most screwed up thing I've ever heard. But hey, opinions and such are just that.

heh heh heh. This thread taught me a new phrase for "lunchmeat". Heavy on the ham and baloney. And don't ignore the turkey, either.

In my neck of the woods, such attitudes would sound a lot like the meal bell.

Your loss. Not MY name that's getting dragged through the mud.

I'm done with this thread. Knock yourself out, kids.