Has Bush's Brain Given Notice?

[Diuretic]

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.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

I think we should bring back dueling.

 

[Gunny]

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.

I agree that perjury is a crime; however, perjury REQUIRES criminal intent.

The presumption of innocence is STILL a basic tenet of US law, even if it currently resides only on paper.

There are plenty of people who need to be reminded regarding the rules of evidence. In this case, start with everyone on the left and the media they play puppeteer for. They were ready to hang Rove from the nearest yardarm the second his name was mentioned.

 

[Diuretic]

Yes, perjury requires intent, well it does in my jurisdiction so I presume it's the same in the US. Recklessness probably won't amount to proof nor would negligence I think. And mistake, no way would it get there.

The presumption of innocence is fine, I made that clear. I have to say that - from my point of view - it's very alien to see people in the US discussing a case even as it's before the court. In my jurisdiction the sort of speculation that occurs in the US (protected of course by the First Amendment) would see the slammer full of people charged with contempt of court. But that's how it plays out there, people are free to discuss Scott Petersen's case or Scooter Libby's case or OJ's case, in great detail, speculating about guilt. Personally I wouldn't comment even here, it just goes against my grain.

And I suppose that flows into your final point. It appears that speculation in the manner you suggest is quite okay. That being so then it's okay for all.

 

[dilloduck]

Yes, perjury requires intent, well it does in my jurisdiction so I presume it's the same in the US. Recklessness probably won't amount to proof nor would negligence I think. And mistake, no way would it get there.

The presumption of innocence is fine, I made that clear. I have to say that - from my point of view - it's very alien to see people in the US discussing a case even as it's before the court. In my jurisdiction the sort of speculation that occurs in the US (protected of course by the First Amendment) would see the slammer full of people charged with contempt of court. But that's how it plays out there, people are free to discuss Scott Petersen's case or Scooter Libby's case or OJ's case, in great detail, speculating about guilt. Personally I wouldn't comment even here, it just goes against my grain.

And I suppose that flows into your final point. It appears that speculation in the manner you suggest is quite okay. That being so then it's okay for all.

Watching and commenting on criminal procedures is a sport here. Everyone's got an opinion.

 

[Diuretic]

Watching and commenting on criminal procedures is a sport here. Everyone's got an opinion.

And it's newsworthy of course. Here we can speculate as much as we like in private provided we don't publish that speculation when a case is before the courts. Anyway I'll get off the point if I pursue that particular issue.

 

[Gunny]

Yes, perjury requires intent, well it does in my jurisdiction so I presume it's the same in the US. Recklessness probably won't amount to proof nor would negligence I think. And mistake, no way would it get there.

The presumption of innocence is fine, I made that clear. I have to say that - from my point of view - it's very alien to see people in the US discussing a case even as it's before the court. In my jurisdiction the sort of speculation that occurs in the US (protected of course by the First Amendment) would see the slammer full of people charged with contempt of court. But that's how it plays out there, people are free to discuss Scott Petersen's case or Scooter Libby's case or OJ's case, in great detail, speculating about guilt. Personally I wouldn't comment even here, it just goes against my grain.

And I suppose that flows into your final point. It appears that speculation in the manner you suggest is quite okay. That being so then it's okay for all.

In all actuality, this is one instance where I see your law as superior to ours. When freedom of speech is taken so far that people are tried and convicted by the media prior to even an arraignment, something is wrong with the system.

You mention Peterson. He had NO chance. His arrogant personality didn't help him much, but he was tried and convicted by the media .... most especially Greta Van Susteren and Nancy Grace, before he ever went to trial. He was convicted and sentenced to death based on circumstantial evidence.

Compare that to OJ Simpson's trial. The American judicial system was held hostage by the threat of racial violence if an ethnic minority group did not receive the results it desired.

The law demands a fair trial. And I say if there is ANY notoriety involved, there is no such thing.

 

[Dr Grump]

No. But he'll go down anyway simply as another sacrifice to the left's petty, partisan war against Bush and/or his administration.

Unlike the right who never went after Clinton, right?

 

[Dr Grump]

Recklessness probably won't amount to proof nor would negligence I think.

Actually, with some statutes/laws it does. Dunno about perjury..

(edit)..I should add recklessness/negligence isn't proof per se, but can go towards proving a charge...

 

[007]

Taking people down in Washington D.C. is sport. No truth be needed.

 

[dilloduck]

Unlike the right who never went after Clinton, right?

No--it's EXACTLY like it. A disgusting display by two parties whose supporters elect them over and over.

 

[Gunny]

Unlike the right who never went after Clinton, right?

When did "the right" go after Clinton? Are you referring to Monica-gate? If so, you need to reexamine your facts. A Washington career bureaucrat spilled the beans on Billybob and Attorney General Janet Reno, a Clinton appointee, ordered Ken Starr to shift the focus of his investigation from Whitewater to Billybob and his antics.

Further, even if "the right went after Clinton," what does that have to do with this? Oh yeah ... you lefties got that adloescent tit-for-tat thing going.

 

[UnAmericanYOU]

Hence the question mark in the thread title....although Chris Matthews mentioned it on Friday, too. But then again, the questions arise from someone who thinks other folk are "unamerican". I wonder why that is....

But just so you know, I won't believe it til I see it either.

I am kind of interested, though, in why the right is so quick to demand "proof " of everything that concerns this admin, while still spouting unproven allegations having to do with the last president. But there ya go! (I'm not saying you're wrong to want proof this time...just should have been the same last time around, too).

Are you talking about Bill Clinton? I was only on one forum back when he left office in 2001, and it was a UNIX operating system site, politics never came up, so, no, I didn't.

The inditement story didn't make sense, now over where this was first published, they're saying Rove was totally cleared. Credibility in question again, you can't just believe what you want to believe, you'll miss too much.

It's this obsession with seeing Karl Rove indited, why? This has been going on for months now.

 

[dilloduck]

Are you talking about Bill Clinton? I was only on one forum back when he left office in 2001, and it was a UNIX operating system site, politics never came up, so, no, I didn't.

The inditement story didn't make sense, now over where this was first published, they're saying Rove was totally cleared. Credibility in question again, you can't just believe what you want to believe, you'll miss too much.

It's this obsession with seeing Karl Rove indited, why? This has been going on for months now.

One side always likes wiping out a guy from the other side. And Karl is like a general!

 

[jillian]

One side always likes wiping out a guy from the other side. And Karl is like a general!

No...Karl is an animal. And if (and I say IF) he leaked the name of a covert operative to hurt someone who made the admin look bad, then he deserves to go to jail. Real simple.

 

[dilloduck]

No...Karl is an animal. And if (and I say IF) he leaked the name of a covert operative to hurt someone who made the admin look bad, then he deserves to go to jail. Real simple.

He's not being indicted for that---I bet he loves it when you call him an "animal".

 

[jillian]

He's not being indicted for that---I bet he loves it when you call him an "animal".

No? Just for lying about it, huh?

 

[dilloduck]

No? Just for lying about it, huh?

and they might throw in obstruction of justice for good measure---

 

[Gunny]

No...Karl is an animal. And if (and I say IF) he leaked the name of a covert operative to hurt someone who made the admin look bad, then he deserves to go to jail. Real simple.

She was REAL covert, driving to CIA Headquarters to work every day.

Leaking the name of a "covert" operative to hurt someone who made the admin look bad doesn't accomplish a damned thing. Her lying-ass hubby and his delusions of grandeur did more to compromise her so-called "cover" than anything anyone in the administration did.

And yeah, he's an "animal." He takes interns right up to the Oval Office and uses cigars for sex toys on them.

 

[Gunny]

No? Just for lying about it, huh?

Yeah, and just how do PROVE he lied? You can't without a confession. The best that can proven is that he gave erroneous information.

That of course won't stop the witchhunt.