Replies

with all due respect, I think you're assuming Clarke will be charged with perjury during his closed door testimony (is a Bush admin. official). From what I'm reading, the perjury charge will come from his testimony from Wed. (not a Bush admin. official)

From what I'm reading, the perjury charge will come from his testimony from Wed. (not a Bush admin. official)

This is where Kerry's demand that Clarke be criminally charged is a win-win situation for him. Who do you think the defense will subpeona to testify in a trial if Clarke is charged? Condi, Rummy, Cheney, Wolfie, and maybe even the President. They would be questioned in public under oath about anything and everything related to whether Clarke's statements are truth or lie. The administration would ever allow itself to be put in that kind of situation.

And if the earlier classified testimony is made public, how does the administration justify holding other testimony still secret? The Dems (and the press) will howl that this is selective declassification and demand that other testimony and documents be released.

I think it is the Republicans who had better be careful what they ask for, because this opens up a can of worms that could get everyone messy.

with all due respect, I think you're assuming Clarke will be charged with perjury during his closed door testimony (is a Bush admin. official). From what I'm reading, the perjury charge will come from his testimony from Wed. (not a Bush admin. official)

Well, I'm not assuming either one, cuz I don't really know what will happen :)

I will say that I'm sure you're right that any hypothetical perjury trial of Clarke would use his more recent testimony as a springboard. My point is that the only real proof that he committed perjury in this testimony is that it contradicts other testimony he gave - if one assumes that that other testimony was the truth, his current testimony must be lies.

But his "defense" can be "but that other testimony *wasn't* the truth. I was lying back then." Even if this is not what happens, I do imagine that one way or the other "his 2002 testimony was exposed as untruthful" could be a primary result of any perjury trial.