Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
I just don't see why the right wing thinks that argument is going to fly. First off, you can't prove the negative that "no crime was committed". How do you know that? Simply because the prosecution was unable to prosecute does not mean no crime was committed, anymore than a murder where no suspect has been arrested does. Secondly, the crime of perjury is a crime in and of itself, this idea that perjury depends on some other crime being committed is simply preposterous, and so lacking of any logic that it paints those who advocates this argument as morons. This is all very simple stuff: it is a crime to lie to a Grand Jury. Under our system, a parade of witnesses from both sides, an impartial judge and jury and an ethical prosecutor and competent defense attorney get to prosecute, defend and finally decide if this crime was committed. Was any of this lacking in this case? A corrupt judge? A tainted prosecutor? A bribed jury? The right is simply in a vacuum here as far as any real arguments: the man is fucking bare faced liar, who lies to protect other bare faced liars, and is now going to prison. Justice done.
Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.
-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address