From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I'm not sure that I fully understand your American humour (what did Mr. Gonzalez swear to?). But it seems to me that either you're for people committing perjury or you're ag'in' it. Ifn you're ag'in' it then it shouldn't matter whether the person is Republican or Democrat. The article currently appears to be saying that although Reagan didn't commit perjury he should be criticized nonetheless whereas whilst Clinton did commit perjury in his case it was OK because it was a lie about a woman (my, how far you little cuties have come!). It all smacks a little of the sort of partisanship that RationalWiki should be in the business of criticizing rather than supporting. Or is it all intended to be tongue-in-cheek? [Apologies for forgetting to sign earlier] --Horace 17:51, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

It's mostly tongue in cheek, we are ag'in perjury, of course. The amusing part is pointing out various perjuries' nature and the political reactions to them. The article, of course, may evolve until the "tongue in cheek" part is gone. I included Clinton because not to would have been more partisan. It doesn't say I approve of his perjury - a "gentleman's white lie" under oath is still perjury or obstruction of justice.
There is a complex aspect of American law, however, as regards the President, where while in office they are usually immune from prosecution for minor offences (helps keep the political dogs at bay). But that is more theory than hard constitutional law. Theory that various presidents (and sometimes congresses, etc.) have "developed", mostly in order to cover their own asses. One prime way of understanding this is that a sitting President is not subject to the normal criminal justice system, they answer to Congress and the impeachment process.
Running comment, you will note that the high hullaballoo over Clinton's perjury from the right has not exactly been matched by their reaction to Libby's conviction of same. In fact, many prominent wingers have come out in strenuous defense of his wonderful record in an attempt to mitigate his punishment. To no avail, so far. humanbe in 12:15, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
Actually, several prominent figures from the administration, including Rumsfeld, had asked the judge for leniency, which I believe hurt Libby, based on the judge's comments. The talk is they are hoping that his sentence can wait to be carried out, so that he might be pardoned.--PalMD-yada yada 12:39, 6 June 2007 (CDT)