Rep. James Sensenbrenner asked Holder: “Tell me what’s the difference between lying and misleading Congress, in this context?”
Holder’s response is a bit Clintonian. “Well, if you want to have this legal conversation, it all has to do with your state of mind and whether or not you had the requisite intent to come up with something that would be considered perjury or a lie,” Holder said. “The information that was provided by the February 4th letter was gleaned by the people who drafted the letter after they interacted with people who they thought were in the best position to have the information.”
Advertisement
Update: Holder not sworn in under oath? And as Ed Morrissey quips, “Finally: Holder debunks the ‘Bush lied’ meme.”
Filed under: Liberal Fascism, Muggeridge's Law
I’m sure Scooter Libby had every intention to commit perjury about the non-crime he was discussing.
I hope the people who “gleaned” and those they “gleaned” it from have DoJ provided bus insurance. Certainly Mr Holder believes he has nothing to fear.
“Jerry, just remember, it’s not a lie if you believe it. ”
George Castanza
So Holder has just invented “implausible deniability”?
Holder: [rephrase] “A lie depends on your state of mind, whether you intended to come up with something that would be considered perjury or a lie”
The simple definition is that a lie is saying something that one considers false at the time. A lie has to do with knowledge, not intent.
Holder seems to present something much more nuanced and philosophical. That he didn’t lie, because despite his knowledge of the truth, he didn’t intend to “come up with something” which would be considered as a lie.
I think he is claiming a lack of skill. He couldn’t “come up with something” which had no meaning at all. Only a lack of rhetorical skill led him to say something which could be considered a lie.