It is 10 past 6 and I am watching Fox and Friends and they are talking about the Plame investigation. Now, it is early and the coffee isn't finished but I just heard Brian Kilmeade say that the administration was saying that the investigation was into whether or not someone deliberately leaked a CIA operative's name not into perjury and obstruction of justice charges. Then, helpful as always, Kieran talked about how anyone who had 2 and a half years to investigate someone should have been able to come up with better than perjury and obstruction of justice charges.
I am really stunned by all of this. I haven't written much on the subject, mostly because everybody else is writing about and and, truth be told, no one really knows anything yet--but this is ridiculous.
How long did Kenneth Star investigate Bill Clinton? Four years?
What charges came out of that investigation? Perjury?
Sen. Hutchinson said, in this statement:
"Lying is a moral wrong. Perjury is a lie told under oath that is legally wrong. To be illegal, the lie must be willfully told, must be believed to be untrue, and must relate to a material matter. Title 18, Section 1621 and 1623, U.S. Code. ..." Thanks to Myopic Zeal.
Obviously, for her, something has changed.
The Republicans thought perjury was an impeachable offense --which I'm not arguing today--but now, according to Senator Kay Baily Hutchinson, perjury is just a technicality.
Michelle Malkin and my favorite Republicans over at AnkleBitingPundits say this is bad, that perjury is a crime not a technicality. I'm glad that not everyone has slipped of the edge of sanity.
As to whether or not anyone leaked Valerie Plame's name. I don't know. Colonel Hunt says that all CIA operatives names are secret and to give out their names is wrong. That's just the way it is. It makes sense to me. Especially, in a time of war, I think we need to err on the side of caution--at least that is what the Republicans keep telling me when it comes to EVERYTHING else.
So, when the WSJ says "...a close call needs to be no call..." I have to disagree.
Either we are a nation of laws or we aren't. Which is it?
Chris
Read more on this subject at"
Perjury and obstruction of justice ARE crimes. And if that is what happened here, then those responsible should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The President instructed his staff to cooperate with the investigation. If someone failed to do that, then I think the president knows that he can't trust that person. And I think the president knows what he has to do i nthat situation.
At this point, we don't know anything. There have been no indictments or convictions. All we have at the moment are illegal leaks of grand jury testimony and some wishful thinking on the part of a partisan press.
For the record, I thought the Clinton impeachment hearings were a bad idea. I still do. The Starr investigation was the right thing to do because these were serious allegations being made and the president is not above the law. But let's not kid ourselves here...the impeachment fiasco was a bad call...one that the Democrats failed to learn from, near as I can tell...
Posted by: Matt Hurley | Tuesday, October 25, 2005 at 09:02 AM
if someone has broken a law and it is proven beyond a resonable doubt then they should have the appropriate punishment visited upon them. however,
Posted by: jestplainol'bill | Tuesday, October 25, 2005 at 09:24 AM
Victoria T..ensing (or however ya spell it) said, at the beginning of all this, that even if it was found that someone "outted" this women, they would not have broken this law. (She wrote the law.)
So, I guess they were actually going for the hope that someone would trip up in the investigation.
Posted by: Chris Sears | Tuesday, October 25, 2005 at 01:16 PM
What's good for the Democrats is good for the Republicans. It is the Republicans who set bar on perjury and now it is time for the Republicans to be held to the same Standard.
That being said; Clinton lied about sex and these guys lied about Treason. Why do I think those on the right who condemned Clinton for his lie will excuse the treason lie?
Posted by: HC Steve | Tuesday, October 25, 2005 at 06:48 PM
HC,
Helloooo, what treason? Will you post the law about treason that they supposedly broke? Or is that a lefty talking point I am hearing?
Just a note on Clinton. If he would have been ANY other federal gov't employee and would have done what he did on the job, it would have been immediate dismissal. (My husband works for the gov't) So, let's not make light of what he did. And yes, lying (perjury) is bad, whether it's about sex or anything else. And IIRC Clinton also wrote up the affidavit for Monica too. So it wasn't just lying.
Posted by: Shari | Tuesday, October 25, 2005 at 07:57 PM
Shari
If you cannot agree outing a CIA Agent is treason, then you prove my point.
Posted by: HC | Wednesday, October 26, 2005 at 01:07 PM
HC, Ck out what that law really says. If the lawyers who wrote the law say that this woman does not qualify for the definition in the law, I will be very surprised if anyone is indicted for that offense. It was done to trip someone up in their stories and make charges of perjury possible. It's not treason!
Posted by: Chris Sears | Wednesday, October 26, 2005 at 01:24 PM
Since when did far left wing wackos like HC Steve start caring about the CIA? Weren't radicals like him trying to destroy the organization during the 70's 80's and 90's? The hypocrisy from the left is stunning!
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel | Wednesday, October 26, 2005 at 06:13 PM
Sometimes I feel like a Psychic.
Posted by: HC | Thursday, October 27, 2005 at 01:27 AM
HC you definitely are a physic -I mean a psychic.
Posted by: Chris Sears | Thursday, October 27, 2005 at 10:28 PM
Chris S.
It is not your bowels that I am trying to clear; it's your head. I guess I have to keep trying.
Posted by: HC | Thursday, October 27, 2005 at 10:58 PM