# What's the punishment for lying to a federal grand jury?



## erj549 (Jul 26, 2008)

In her seven hour grand jury testimony yesterday, Stephanie McIlvain characterized all her previously recorded negative comments about Armstrong as "gossip sessions that just weren't true." She also denied having ever heard Armstrong admit to the use of doping products. See VN's story here.

I know she must be getting paid well by Oakley, but I don't see how this is a good decision at all. There's no way Oakley or the Lance Armstrong legal machine can protect here from the consequences of perjuring herself in front of a grand jury. Just doesn't seem like this will end well for her.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

I don't know, but there's no penalty for lying to us 

They surely didn't question her over something that is really rather unimportant in this case for 7 hours. They must have had a lot more dirt in a lot of other areas to sift through.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

erj549 said:


> In her seven hour grand jury testimony yesterday, Stephanie McIlvain characterized all her previously recorded negative comments about Armstrong as "gossip sessions that just weren't true." She also denied having ever heard Armstrong admit to the use of doping products. See VN's story here.
> 
> I know she must be getting paid well by Oakley, but I don't see how this is a good decision at all. There's no way Oakley or the Lance Armstrong legal machine can protect here from the consequences of perjuring herself in front of a grand jury. Just doesn't seem like this will end well for her.



The Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens impending trials are very instructive. If the above is accurate, she'll be facing criminal charges for perjury.

I suspect she'll spend at least 6 months in Federal housing.

The authorities don't like being lied to.

Similiar to when someone is drunk and gets pulled over and the cop asks if the driver has been drinking. They know the drunk has been drinking. Denying it is like waving a red cape in front of a bull.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

offtopic, but I love the OP's avatar and quote- makes me laugh every time I see it. :thumbsup:


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

Dwayne Barry said:


> I don't know, but there's no penalty for lying to us
> 
> They surely didn't question her over something that is really rather unimportant in this case for 7 hours. They must have had a lot more dirt in a lot of other areas to sift through.



Right, the Grand Jury is a secret proceeding so her lawyer spouting the company line doesn't mean she didn't confirm Betsy's story.

By the time LA is indicted, he's going to face a long line of confidants who've "betrayed" him.

Actually pretty good lawyering unless he's gotten himself in hot water by violating a gag order.


----------



## erj549 (Jul 26, 2008)

Coolhand said:


> offtopic, but I love the OP's avatar and quote- makes me laugh every time I see it. :thumbsup:


Thanks for noticing. It's one of my most favorite movie lines ever.


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

blackjack said:


> Similiar to when someone is drunk and gets pulled over and the cop asks if the driver has been drinking. They know the drunk has been drinking. Denying it is like waving a red cape in front of a bull.


Analogy fail.
agreeing or denying doesn't alter the process. Your still going to exit the vehicle and perform FSTs. Everybody claims innocence to cops, so it's not like it ruffles our feathers when someone lies to us.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

blackjack said:


> By the time LA is indicted


Indicted for what?


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

covenant said:


> Everybody claims innocence to cops, so it's not like it ruffles our feathers when someone lies to us.


So if somebody tells you the truth on the spot...does that ruffle your feathers?


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

Marc said:


> Indicted for what?


RICO.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

covenant said:


> Analogy fail.
> agreeing or denying doesn't alter the process. Your still going to exit the vehicle and perform FSTs. Everybody claims innocence to cops, so it's not like it ruffles our feathers when someone lies to us.



It's your belief the Police NEVER cut anyone a break?

A suspect or defendent isn't ultimately trying to alter the process. They are trying to alter the final outcome.

I can tell you as a witness to an event, that someone I know, was asked by the police, "Were you drinking?." He responded, "4 or 5 beers." He then failed a field sobriety test and the officer announced "You're impaired, I'm going to save you $6,000."



The officer then directed my friend to dial the number of a towing company and my friend got off with speeding ticket. His car went on a flatbed to his house.

It was clear as day my friend was drinking. If he had lied to the officer, I guarantee the officer would have put him in cuffs. It would have been an insult to the officer's intelligence. My friend was smart enough to throw himself on the "mercy of the court" so to speak.

So my analogy doesn't fail. If you cooperate with law enforecement at any level, you may get a break. If you're obstinate, and they know you're lying, you'll probably get the book thrown at you. It's such a cliche, that it's on every TV drama relating to law enforcement.

Are you a rookie?

If you persist that police procedures (*and more importantly, their outcomes*) are written in stone, I'll bet I can give a specific example that would change your mind.


----------



## pigpen (Sep 28, 2005)

Ask Bill Clinton.


----------



## lastchild (Jul 4, 2009)

blackjack said:


> RICO.


what does this have to do with Riccardo Rico...?


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

punishment? depends on WHO you are.


----------



## NextTime (Oct 13, 2007)

erj549 said:


> There's no way Oakley or the Lance Armstrong legal machine can protect here from the consequences of perjuring herself in front of a grand jury. Just doesn't seem like this will end well for her.


I'd like to better understand how you know she lied to the Grand Jury.


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

blackjack said:


> Are you a rookie?
> 
> If you persist that police procedures (*and more importantly, their outcomes*) are written in stone, I'll bet I can give a specific example that would change your mind.


a 14 year rookie :thumbsup: 

just so you understand the plural of_ anecdote_ is not_ facts_

Many times officers will tell someone to "help themselves out and tell the truth" but most times the end result is the same. It's a interview technique.

I'm not sure what "impaired" means in the jurisdiction your story took place in but normally impaired is the "i" in DWI which has stiffer penalies than a DUI. Most states have zero tolerance and there's no difference between DWI and DUI. So maybe the officer made the charge seem less than what it really was! Another nice interview technique


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

Wookiebiker said:


> So if somebody tells you the truth on the spot...does that ruffle your feathers?


Not at all, I figure they're lying until I can determine otherwise... 

Believe half what you see and none of what you hear.

Expect the worst and your never disappointed! :thumbsup:


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

covenant said:


> a 14 year rookie :thumbsup:
> 
> just so you understand the plural of_ anecdote_ is not_ facts_
> 
> ...



You've completely missed the point.

The analogy I made was a valid one.

Stephanie McIlvaine is obviously lying. The Federal Investigation is well past the fact finding phase. Right now they're building and strengthening their case and if they can obtain more facts that's great, but this thing is well past the point of no return for the Feds. They know what the truth is, they are now just trying to legally prove it.

In the same way, a person who was obviously drinking, does themselves no favors if they deny that they were drinking, and they most likely make their predicament worse.

Why do they make it worse? Because if there was any chance in hell the cop was going to give them a break, it most likely went right out the window when they denied drinking, in effect, lying to the cop. Most cops are on a power trip and have to be right about everything and will argue anything. Lying to the cop just provokes them. If one plays along, and kisses ass, maybe they get sent home with a speeding ticket and and towing bill rather an arrest for being at twice the legal limit. That happened!

Maybe the driver was a member of another LE agency, active duty military, or Ret. Military, maybe they had a CDL, whatever. They were drunk, and if they lied when they were obviously drunk, the cop would probably not save their skin and would feel much better busting their balls.

Police procedure, DUI/DWI, facts compared to anecdotes, that stuff has nothing to do with what I wrote.

What does matter is that Stephanie McIlvain is between a rock and a hard place and by lying she just made matters worse because now she'll face a perjury charge rather than just being on the outs with Armstrong.


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

blackjack said:


> Most cops are on a power trip...


...and that's where I stopped reading. Have a good day!


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

covenant said:


> ...and that's where I stopped reading.  Have a good day!



all it takes is 51 out of 100 to qualify as "most".


----------



## wiz525 (Dec 31, 2007)

blackjack said:


> Stephanie McIlvaine is obviously lying. The Federal Investigation is well past the fact finding phase. Right now they're building and strengthening their case and if they can obtain more facts that's great, but this thing is well past the point of no return for the Feds. They know what the truth is, they are now just trying to legally prove it.


Not that I disagree with these comments, but how do you know this to be true? how is it "obviously lying?" and how do you know the details of the case to make the statements you do? just curious.

and there is usually quite a bit of distance between "knowing what the truth is" and "legally proving it..."


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

NextTime said:


> I'd like to better understand how you know she lied to the Grand Jury.


I don't think any of us really know what she said in the Grand Jury room but we have heard what her lawyer said to the press. Her lawyers statements are different from what she has told friends, Journalists, TV producers, etc multiple times over the years. 

Hopefully for Stephanie her lawyer was just giving the spin.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

rydbyk said:


> all it takes is 51 out of 100 to qualify as "most".



:thumbsup:  :cryin:


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

covenant said:


> ...and that's where I stopped reading. Have a good day!


:cryin:


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

wiz525 said:


> Not that I disagree with these comments, but how do you know this to be true? how is it "obviously lying?" and how do you know the details of the case to make the statements you do? just curious.
> 
> and there is usually quite a bit of distance between "knowing what the truth is" and "legally proving it..."


Anonymous sources have confirmed what's already publicly available and widely disseminated.

Do you believe Armstrong? If so, all his accusers are bitter liars, with an axe to grind.

Before I spoke to my anonymous sources, way back in 2001, when LeMond expressed his disappointment, I started to have doubts. Everything that has been released publicly has only reinforced those doubts.

OTOH, even the most simple statements from Armstrong have proven to be untrue.

Kevin Livingston was named in the Ferrari investigation way back and his best friend, Lance Armstrong, knows absolutely nothing about the details? 

Please, even the most basic statements from Armstrong strain credulity.

Don't you think it's odd that the only person with a PR firm (Public Strategies) is Armstrong? Everyone else in this thing speaks freely with any media which inquires.

When you're telling the truth, you don't need to consult with a PR firm or high powered atty's for strategy.

McIlvain needs an attorney for a conversation that never happened. Remember that she also told Bicycling's James Startt about this non-existent hospital room incident.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I don't think any of us really know what she said in the Grand Jury room but we have heard what her lawyer said to the press. Her lawyers statements are different from what she has *told friends, Journalists, TV producers, etc multiple times over the years. *
> Hopefully for Stephanie her lawyer was just giving the spin.



Thanks! Apparently she likes to "gossip" a lot.:blush2:


----------



## Fogdweller (Mar 26, 2004)

Marion Jones got jail time for it. Bonds will probably avoid the clink but I hope not. Even as a Giants fan I couldn't stand the guy.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

Marion Jones did not get jail time for claiming not to remember a conversation between two other people. 

Even if they go back at Stephanie about the fact that others report she told them something about that hospital conversation, all she has to reply is this:

"If that's what they've said I said to them, that's interesting. Unfortunately it's been so long I can't recall if I actually told them that or was misquoted or lied or was just gossiping or who knows. I guess what it comes down to is, if you want my official sworn testimony on this supposed hospital conversation, all I can say is that right now I can't recall anything about such a conversation or whether it took place or not. Sorry I can't be of more help to you."

No chance in hell that leads to a perjury conviction. "I don't recall," is always a defense. Works for government/military officials all the time.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

pacificaslim said:


> Marion Jones did not get jail time for claiming not to remember a conversation between two other people.
> 
> Even if they go back at Stephanie about the fact that others report she told them something about that hospital conversation, all she has to reply is this:
> 
> ...


There's at least 4 witnesses we know of who will testify about what she knows, a tape recording of what she knows, a tape recording of Bill Stapleton's knowledge, a threatening McIlvaine recording. 

She's going to be spending some time in the pen. Perjury/Obstruction.

Two types of cases arise under the Omnibus Clause: the concealment, alteration, or destruction of documents; *and the encouraging or rendering of false testimony*. Actual obstruction is not needed as an element of proof to sustain a conviction. The defendant's endeavor to obstruct justice is sufficient. "Endeavor" has been defined by the courts as an effort to accomplish the purpose the statute was enacted to prevent. The courts have consistently held that "endeavor" constitutes a lesser threshold of purposeful activity than a criminal "attempt."

http://www.answers.com/topic/obstruction-of-justice


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

What one said in the past, has no bearing on what they may remember today. She could even have said, "I _don't recall _ever having a conversation with a journalist about this," and still not have that be perjury even though we all trust the conversation took place (according to the journalist anyway). Since it's totally possible to have forgotten things that have happened in our past. 

If you are so sure she will spend federal pen time for perjury or obstruction, will you pledge to make a donation to the charity of my choice if she does not?



> here's at least 4 witnesses we know of who will testify about what she knows,


Incorrect. All they can testify about is what she "claimed" once upon a time. And even those are vague (lemond tape: I heard "it" with no clarification of what "it" was). They can't testify that she was for sure telling the truth when she spoke to them back then. And they certainly can not testify about what she may or may not remember today about all this. In other words, no evidence that what she said this week was untruthful, since it's totally possible that she no longer remembers anything about it, or that what she remembers is different from what she may have told people in the past. that's not perjury.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

pacificaslim said:


> What one said in the past, has no bearing on what they may remember today. She could even have said, "I _don't recall _ever having a conversation with a journalist about this," and still not have that be perjury even though we all trust the conversation took place (according to the journalist anyway). Since it's totally possible to have forgotten things that have happened in our past.
> 
> If you are so sure she will spend federal pen time for perjury or obstruction, will you pledge to make a donation to the charity of my choice if she does not?
> 
> ...


WHAT????????   

Again, the question isn't what's possible, the question is, what happened.


Saying that not remembering is an absolute defense to a perjury charge may make sense in your world perhaps.

They'll take her not remembering into consideration and then they can just charge her with either perjury and/or obstruction and she's found guilty by a jury or a judge if she elects a bench trial.


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

Martha Stewart went to jail for lying to investigators in addition to the athletes we've seen get jail time. One of the ways prosecutors can nail someone who otherwise would get away without any criminal charges is to catch them perjuring themselves.

They are going to subpoena Armstrong sooner or later and you can rest assured that when they do then their case is completely put together with the exception of putting him in front of the grand jury. He is either going to have to take the 5th Amendment, lie, or fess up. 

If Armstrong came clean and just talked about the culture of doping throughout elite cycling then I think he would ultimately be viewed as a hero in the long run by the U.S. public as a whole. If he goes down through a conviction, history will view him very differently.


----------



## Borti (Aug 1, 2008)

Gatorback said:


> Martha Stewart went to jail for lying to investigators in addition to the athletes we've seen get jail time. One of the ways prosecutors can nail someone who otherwise would get away without any criminal charges is to catch them perjuring themselves.
> 
> They are going to subpoena Armstrong sooner or later and you can rest assured that when they do then their case is completely put together with the exception of putting him in front of the grand jury. He is either going to have to take the 5th Amendment, lie, or fess up.
> 
> If Armstrong came clean and just talked about the culture of doping throughout elite cycling then I think he would ultimately be viewed as a hero in the long run by the U.S. public as a whole. If he goes down through a conviction, history will view him very differently.


Do you think his 'time' for coming clean has passed? 

I ultimately agree that him telling the truth is better than the continued lies...


----------



## pianopiano (Jun 4, 2005)

Borti said:


> Do you think his 'time' for coming clean has passed?
> 
> I ultimately agree that him telling the truth is better than the continued lies...


Sadly, it ain't gonna happen. A guy like that (LA) will take it to his grave.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

piano said:


> Sadly, it ain't gonna happen. A guy like that (LA) will take it to his grave.


True for a bunch of those guys actually. You think the Badger would ever fess up? Sadly most of the GT winners from 1980-2000 are more likely dirty than not. Probably similar to most major professional sports during that period. Except maybe curling. . .


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Gatorback said:


> Martha Stewart went to jail for lying to investigators in addition to the athletes we've seen get jail time. One of the ways prosecutors can nail someone who otherwise would get away without any criminal charges is to catch them perjuring themselves.
> 
> They are going to subpoena Armstrong sooner or later and you can rest assured that when they do then their case is completely put together with the exception of putting him in front of the grand jury. He is either going to have to take the 5th Amendment, lie, or fess up.
> 
> If Armstrong came clean and just talked about the culture of doping throughout elite cycling then I think he would ultimately be viewed as a hero in the long run by the U.S. public as a whole. If he goes down through a conviction, history will view him very differently.



Agreed. I do wonder how much longer LA has before it is too late to come clean...assuming he has something to fess up about  He sure seems to...


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

Coolhand said:


> True for a bunch of those guys actually. You think the Badger would ever fess up? Sadly most of the GT winners from 1980-2000 are more likely dirty than not. Probably similar to most major professional sports during that period. Except maybe curling. . .


What do you think about Ken Griffey Jr.? His body seemed to start falling apart at the previously normal age for falling apart, as opposed to Bonds.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

blackjack said:


> What do you think about Ken Griffey Jr.? His body seemed to start falling apart at the previously normal age for falling apart, as opposed to Bonds.


I think he was probably clean(ish), especially in the second half of his career. I would also add that his performance trailed off then as well. I guess the big question would be the first half of his career when he was putting in some very impressive numbers is a sport drowning in a PED tide.


----------



## ping771 (Apr 10, 2006)

lastchild said:


> what does this have to do with Riccardo Rico...?


Sorry for the late reply to your question....haha!

RICO is not a reference to Riccardo Ricco, but to the RICO Act, or "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act," which is a federal law which the federal government has used to prosecute organized crime for decades. The law prosecutes organizations (more than 1 person) for conspiring or acting together to commit any number of crimes that fall under the statute. The statute is broad enough to include the crime of obstruction of justice. So in this case, if it can be proven that Stephanie McIlvain was part of a group of people involved in this doping coverup and she lied to the feds (obstruction of justice) then she can prosecuted under RICO. I am not following the news on this, so I don't know whether the Feds are looking to prosecute under RICO.


----------



## Axe (Sep 21, 2004)

blackjack said:


> Anonymous sources have confirmed what's already publicly available and widely disseminated.
> 
> Do you believe Armstrong? If so, all his accusers are bitter liars, with an axe to grind.
> 
> Before I spoke to my anonymous sources, way back in 2001, when LeMond expressed his disappointment, I started to have doubts. Everything that has been released publicly has only reinforced those doubts.


Who the F are you? And why do you think it is OK to spread your hate on a public forum? Do not you want ot go for a ride, or something? You vitriol is getting tiresome. DId you create a new account just to BS?


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

Axe said:


> Who the F are you? And why do you think it is OK to spread your hate on a public forum? *Do not you want ot go for a ride*, or something? You vitriol is getting tiresome. DId you create a new account just to BS?


What does that highlighted portion mean?

Hate?

A little angry there?

Speaking of *Axe*s to grind!


----------



## threebikes (Feb 1, 2009)

_Right now they're building and strengthening their case and if 
they can obtain more facts that's great, but this thing is well 
past the point of no return for the Feds._


The feds can say what ever they want to justify their time, actions 
and money spent to f’k with Lance. I am sure 99.99% of our
population would not care what they did if there was less crime
in the streets. Gangs, drugs, foreign mafia, rape, murder –
shitt that’s way to hard to fight, let’s go after a bicycle rider.

What a crock of shitt. This guy is just playing a power trip to
get promoted.

I wonder what results a poll would find – 
Mess with Lance or fight real crime?


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

threebikes said:


> _Right now they're building and strengthening their case and if
> they can obtain more facts that's great, but this thing is well
> past the point of no return for the Feds._
> 
> ...


Nice sociological theories of Law Enforcement!


----------



## threebikes (Feb 1, 2009)

Our national debt is 13.5 Trillion Dollars or $43,635 per citizen or $121,726 per taxpayer

And you want some guy from the FDA spending millions so he can catch 
a bicycle rider lying to a FGJ.

Its logic like yours that got us 13.5 trillion in debt.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

threebikes said:


> Our national debt is 13.5 Trillion Dollars or $43,635 per citizen or $121,726 per taxpayer
> 
> And you want some guy from the FDA spending millions so he can catch
> a bicycle rider lying to a FGJ.
> ...



Law enforcement costs money. A price we HAVE to pay.

In your opinion cheating/fraud is ok.?

Listen Greenspan, I don't believe this is the Politics thread. Do you believe a tax cut for Armstrong will solve the problem of corruption in ALL aspects of our society?

Also remember that it was GWB who advocated cracking down on sporting steroid/PED cheats in his State of the Union address.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/stateoftheunion2004.htm

_*To help children make right choices, they need good examples. Athletics play such an important role in our society, but, unfortunately, some in professional sports are not setting much of an example. The use of performance-enhancing drugs like steroids in baseball, football, and other sports is dangerous, and it sends the wrong message -- that there are shortcuts to accomplishment, and that performance is more important than character. So tonight I call on team owners, union representatives, coaches, and players to take the lead, to send the right signal, to get tough, and to get rid of steroids now.

To encourage right choices, we must be willing to confront the dangers young people face even when they're difficult to talk about. Each year, about 3 million teenagers contract sexually-transmitted diseases that can harm them, or kill them, or prevent them from ever becoming parents. In my budget, I propose a grassroots campaign to help inform families about these medical risks. We will double federal funding for abstinence programs, so schools can teach this fact of life: Abstinence for young people is the only certain way to avoid sexually-transmitted diseases.
*_

So, you say logic like mine?

Please pay attention.

Then we can have a nice little tea party for you.


----------



## fabsroman (Jul 14, 2006)

piano said:


> Sadly, it ain't gonna happen. A guy like that (LA) will take it to his grave.


Yep, he reminds me more of Clemens and Bonds than he reminds me of Andy Petite. Some people tell the lie long enough that they actually start to believe it themselves.

I'm not a big LA fan. Wouldn't even cross the street to meet him or shake his hand. Now, if he were to come clean and try to clean up the sport, I might actually give him a handshake and a slap on the back should the improbable ever happen and I meet him.

At this point, with the sport being where it is and amatuers getting busted for doping, I don't really even want my kids to pursue this sport, or really any other sport for that matter.


----------



## fabsroman (Jul 14, 2006)

threebikes said:


> Our national debt is 13.5 Trillion Dollars or $43,635 per citizen or $121,726 per taxpayer
> 
> And you want some guy from the FDA spending millions so he can catch
> a bicycle rider lying to a FGJ.
> ...


I'm not really completely behind what Blackjack has been saying in this thread, but I too take exception to that post. It comes down to personal responsibility. Yeah, I want ALL these athletes held accountable. Just like I want politicians to be held accountable, etc. If we really want to talk politics, it is kind of ironic how early on in the recession Obama was claiming it was now his problem. Now, less than a month away from the November election, he is saying that he inherited this entire mess from Bush and the republicans. Yeah, it comes down to responsibility.

The $13.5 trillion debt isn't a result of prosecuting people for perjury. I see way too many people lying on the stand. Why is that? Because people think they can wiggle their way out of personal responsibility. That is what is lacking in our society. If people did things the right way, would we even have this recession? If people were personally responsible for themselves, including companies, would we have this mess? Would companies have been lending money like drunken sailors? Would people have been borrowing money like drunken sailors if they had any personal responsibility? It is all about making a quick buck and passing the cost off to somebody else.

Perjury should never be acceptable, and neither should allowing people to slide on significant crimes.

Political rant over.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

fabsroman said:


> I'm not really completely behind what Blackjack has been saying in this thread, but I too take exception to that post. It comes down to personal responsibility. Yeah, I want ALL these athletes held accountable. Just like I want politicians to be held accountable, etc. If we really want to talk politics, it is kind of ironic how early on in the recession Obama was claiming it was now his problem. Now, less than a month away from the November election, he is saying that he inherited this entire mess from Bush and the republicans. Yeah, it comes down to responsibility.
> 
> The $13.5 trillion debt isn't a result of prosecuting people for perjury. I see way too many people lying on the stand. Why is that? Because people think they can wiggle their way out of personal responsibility. That is what is lacking in our society. If people did things the right way, would we even have this recession? If people were personally responsible for themselves, including companies, would we have this mess? Would companies have been lending money like drunken sailors? Would people have been borrowing money like drunken sailors if they had any personal responsibility? It is all about making a quick buck and passing the cost off to somebody else.
> 
> ...


Despite our different way of seeing things, I think our moral goals almost perfectly overlap.

I will say that the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak, and that is true for everyone.

The moral relatavism employed here by some, because they are emotionally attached to an image, is cause for dismay.

The crimes here aren't unforgiveable. The justifications for the lying to cover up those crimes are a whole other issue though.


----------



## worst_shot_ever (Jul 27, 2009)

For the record, it's my recollection that when "Scooter" Libby was prosecuted (and convicted by a jury) for perjury and obstruction, it was because he lied about his recollection of a conversation with a reporter -- so getting back to the "I don't recall" defense, there are historical instances where that has failed to insulate the perjurer from indictment, trial, and convction (setting aside GWB's susequent commutation of the penalty in that case).

As to RICO, those do not get charged easily. There are significant hurdles to charging that statute, including proving up an enterprise and the requirement of submitting a proposed RICO indictment for scrutiny at Main Justice in Wash, DC, before the locol US Attorneys Office will be permitted to go forward. Not saying it's impossible -- just difficult. (Especially in a historical case with little to no tapes, photos, or other hard evidence, just somewhat creaky memories of witnesses who may be subject to impeachment for bias.) SoI guess I'm just suggesting, don't get your hopes up for a quick indictment on a RICO theory.


----------

