Isn't this flat out perjury?

"But I can also tell you that there was nothing in this memo that suggested that an attack was coming on New York or Washington, D.C. There was nothing in this memo as to time, place, how or where." - Condoleezza Rice

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61252-2004Apr8_2.html

"Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York." - August 6 PDB

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BUSH_MEMO_TEXT?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=POLITICS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Emphasis mine, of course.

absolutely

Just now heard a soundbite from Bush to the same effect.

so, to answer your question, of course not!

if Clarke make such statements?

:kick:

So it doesn't surprise me that she would perjure herself. That whole oath thing was just for show anyway. Honestly, I'm getting tired of holding my breath waiting for justice to come to those lying liars. They knew (and we knew) that she would lie her little head off oath or no oath. And what can we do about it? Dick, bupkis, nada. Until the people, all the people, get tired enough of bending over and taking it.

bitter? me??? nah...

to Lying Liars and the Liars....

And it's something that oxycontin abusers would have a hard time pronouncing.

than criminal negligence--not to mention treason

Who should file charges, and in what jurisdiction?

...but Condi is a Republican...so there is no such thing as lying under oath.

but the second sentence lobs it into that grey area. In order to demonstrate it was perjury, the government would have to prove she intended to lie rather than she was mistaken over facts and the second sentence gives her an out.

There is a "where" and a "how" in these memos. DC and New York are noth named. Hijacking is named. Hijacking was the first half of the 9/11 plot.

Condi tried TOO hard to make everyone believe there was no info in this memo that was anything but historical in nature. Condi said it over and over and over like the talking point it was. Condi didn't just provide false info. She intentionally tried to decieve about the context repeatedly.

Condi needs to hire her own lawyer. She's going to need it.

of perjury as based on the second sentence intent would be difficult if not impossible to prove.

She lied about the facts in the memo repeatedly, and she lied about the context of the memo repeatedly.

The intent to decieve is unmistakable. Intent to decieve and lies about contents both there.

Condi said the memo was entirely historical. Descriptions of ongoing conter-terrorism effors as well as description of Al-Queda activity in NYC were CLEARLY currently ongoing activities at the time of memo. This isn't quibbling over what "'is' is?" Condi said the memo contained NO current info. It did contain current info, in abundance.

It's perjury. Cut and dried.

make then less than crimes. We're stuck with the burden of proof, usually, for better or worse. It's terribly difficult to be objective and hold to one standard in cases like these. Don't forget, Manson was convicted of a crime he never directly took part in, and O.J. was acquitted of one he almost certainly did.

of which this admin. took none. The fact that future attacks were more readily apparent called for SOMETHING to be done. Yet they didn't.
You are right that she dodges the perjury charge by qualifying, but with regard to the due diligence incumbent on her and the admin., she failed utterly and completely- there was a very big fly that needed toi be swatted. They did nothing.

...what else the NeoCons are lying about.

It's what they do.

~ Another bitter DU'er.

"But I can also tell you..". Now, Republicans are able to do or say anything they want without consequence. Thus "I can tell you X", where X is false, is true. So Condi did not lie.

QED

is a faulty defence.

When his LAWYER'S said BC "is not having an affair", that was also true. He wasn't at the time. Didn't mean that he hadn't. Didn't mean he wasn't going to.

Yet Clinton was held for perjury for a statement his lawyer made (because he didn't correct it).

to be ocnsidered perjury? With this bunch, they could very easily argue ignorance....

...for lying about where and how he touched Monica. I would say that just about anything goes after that manipulation.

It was obstruction of justice

If Daschle, Kennedy or Byrd don't press this one home, Franken could make the rounds with this one and get a two-fer: Promote his network and expose a major liar.

I think Condi was set up . I don't think she
thought the memo would be declassified .

in this country has been so perverted by the neocons and their RW puppets that she'll never be held accountable.

They had the warnings and did shit. Most of all, warn us little guys of impending attack.

Instead, they took to flying private jets and long vacations. In the NFL, these guys would be long gone. They fumbled the game away.

As I watched Dr. Rice on CNN, and then later as I taped her testimony from C-Span, it occurred to me that on three occasions her testimony contradicted written evidence that the commissioners had in hand. These were times when I had heard a Commissioner quote from one document or another that was signed by Dr. Rice and later hear Dr. Rice say something entirely different. I saw that three times, though I'd have to go back and watch it again to pick them out.

I just sort of stat there on the couch, talking to the dogs as much as I was talking to myself, saying over and over, 'god dam, can't she go to jail for saying that?" It was perjury that I had on my mind of course.

hands down for contempt, no doubt about that charge.

This chart of claim vs. fact illustrates this clearly. I hope the link works, I found it through axisofjustice.org.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=44918

Your Washington Post link has a quote Rice gave to Ben-Veniste that I thought I might highlight, referencing the August 6 PDB.

"It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information".

Now that the released PDB reveals that there was new threat information regarding al-Qaeda cells gathered in the prior three months plotting to carry out an explosives attack, can anyone explain to me how the above quote does NOT constitute perjury just because the potential threat in the PDB was not 9/11 specific? The question Ben-Veniste asked wasn't 9/11 specific. Here it is:

"Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6th PDB warned against possible attacks in this country?"

Again, HOW DOES THIS NOT CONSTITUTE PERJURY? And where are the prominent Democrats? Why is there nobody in the media screaming PERJURY from the rooftops? Are we at DU the only ones?!

:kick:

:shrug:

Guess we need an attorney here to explain the legal aspect
of the lies.

I was surprised she was lying with such ease, she usually almost falls apart when she does that.

:kick:

Next!

My guess is that it ultimately leads to flat-out treason.