Diuretic
Permanently confused
GunnyL said:Correct. It is Rove's statement he was incorrect in his initial statement. Do you REALLY believe they are going to prove he made erroneous statements with criminal intent?
No. But he'll go down anyway simply as another sacrifice to the left's petty, partisan war against Bush and/or his administration.
Put in true context, his so-called offense is trivial at best, and without evidence of criminal intent, a worthless and bogus allegation.
Perjury is never a trivial allegation Gunny. Never. It's not too dramatic to state that it really does strike at the heart of the criminal justice system. There's no such thing as "perjury lite" - you like under oath or attestation, you commit perjury. Doesn't matter if it's done to convict someone or to protect someone from conviction, it's still perjury.
As to whether or not the case will be proven against Rove (assuming the scuttlebutt is correct and he is going to be indicted) I have no idea. The case will be before a jury and it's up to them to decide on his guilt (lest that be seen to be a swipe, I am of course presuming innocence, juries only decided on guilt, not innocence).
And just in case anyone needs reminding (I'm sure they don't but what the hell) any finding against Rove (or Libby) has to be beyond a reasonable doubt. That means there has to solid evidence of perjury in the sense that the defendant knew he/she was lying. If it was just a case of confused memory then a jury should never find the defendant guilty on that.