Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Evidence: White House witness impeachment and the stink about belief -vs- assertions

The White House, Bush, and the RNC is in deep trouble. The longer they stay in power, the more chances there are for the public and court to catch their mistakes.

* * *

If your potential witness has failed to qualify his statements, and your organization has a habit of making inconsistent out of court statements, what do you do to mitigate the chances your witness could be impeached during a war crimes trial or during a Presidential impeachment?

You change the transcripts.

The Grand Jury will have to decide whether this amounts to a deliberate effort to tamper with evidence.

* * *

"I think" is different than an affirmative statement.
If they're going to assert that "I think" was in there, but it isn't, then it means what they're doing is hoping to buy some legal wiggle room.

When someone expresses an opinion or belief, that is one thing.

When someone says something affirmative, or confirms something, then that takes on a different tone: What are they agreeing to; and whether that confirmation amounts to an official policy or sanction for the representation.

The White House credibility is not only on the line, but they don't have the legal foundation to stand on.

They're inventing "statements of belief" that they may hope they can rely on as a "non-denial denial" for purposes of evidence admission.

The mystery will be to see which Grand Jury will look into this, and whether the effort to adjust the transcripts amounts to an effort to do something which the Grand Jury will probe into.

Indeed, it would be far easier for the White House to simply say, "We should have said that we "think" something; but we confirmed the wrong thing." They haven't done that which suggests that "they may have made other affirmative statements of belief, knowing full well the opposite was true, but they don't want to get into the habit of issuing retractions.

Why? Out of court inconsistent statement are admissible, especially when those who know the full conspiracy and appearing before the Grand Jury are trying to strike deals with the prosecutor.