|
It depends on what the charge of perjury entails. Perjury involves intent to deceive, if I am correct, as in knowingly making a false statement while under oath. What I have read is that it will most likely come down to something like Rove (or whomever) saying he didn't talk with someone - or didn't remember talking to someone - on a given date and phone records showed he did. Well, is that intent to deceive? Or is it possible he didn't remember a phone call from 2 years ago?
To bring up the "C" word, I doubt (unless he was baggin interns on a daily basis) that Clinton forgot. He was making an attempt to deceive and therefore was guilty of perjury.
I am keenly aware that the charges against Clinton had nothing to do with the original purpose of the special prosecutor. That appears to be what will happen here as well. I don't think there will be charges regarding leaking the name "Plame" (which I don't consider to be a "leak" anyway from what I've read, but we've been through that elsewhere), but there will apparently be charges accusing someone (or more than one) with an attempt to cover up what cannot be proven.
As I stated earlier, that sets a dangerous precedent. The government can now try anyone for anything, and if they cannot prove their case, they can find any inconsistency or errant memory and charge the individual with covering up what cannot be proven. "We know you're guilty, we cannot prove it, so we will charge you with covering it up."
That scares me. Regardless of party. Regardless of who.
|