Righties: Lying Under Oath Is OK Now

Awhile back, y’all might remember a certain Democratic president who testified in a civil trial and before a grand jury that he had not had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, and the House impeached him for it. If we’d all gotten nickles for every time some rightie uttered the phrase “Clinton lied under oath” we’d be able to buy out WalMart.

But today we are told that lying to a judge is no big deal, and charging Shellie Zimmerman with a crime for (obviously, to anyone whose head is screwed on) conspiring with her husband to hide assets from the court during a bail hearing is just the prosecution being mean.

On the other hand, at least one rightie blogger has figured out that their knee-jerk support for George Zimmerman is likely to bite the Right in the ass, because the trial may reveal that ol’ GZ’s defense is a pack of lies. And this will play into the hands of those nefarious liberals.

Never, ever let the exception drive the rule. That’s how liberals gain control over law abiding citizens, by claiming the need to avoid giving criminals opportunities.

If anyone knows what planet these people live on, please speak up.

14 thoughts on “Righties: Lying Under Oath Is OK Now

  1. The planet “Authoritarian 3” in the “Alpha Male” galaxy, would be my guess.

    And as for lying – well, it depends on who’s lying, why they’re lying, when they’re lying, where they’re lying, how they’re lying, and what they’re lying about.

    Any and all are acceptable if done for the/a Conservative cause.

    None are acceptable if NOT being done for the/a Conservative cause – and THAT’S how you that a liar is lying – when it’s not being done for the cause of Conservatism.

    Ergo, and ipso facto – ALL Liberals are liars!

  2. A lot of people think they come from Wingnuttia. c u n d gulag’s guess is pretty good, too.

  3. From Wikipedia:

    Perjury, also known as forswearing, is the willful act of swearing a false oath or affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to a judicial proceeding.[1] That is, the witness falsely promises to tell the truth about matters which affect the outcome of the case.

    “Affecting the outcome” is the key test of perjury. That her testimony at the earlier hearing had a direct bearing on the court’s decision is not in doubt. Which us why she is where she is now.

  4. As I keep saying: if you want to know the mind of a rightie, look at what they accuse their opponent of. What is bad for the opponent to do (whether actually done or not) is A-OK for the rightie mind, and since they are usually fabricating the accusation, it shows exactly how their mind works and most often what they themselves have actually done…

  5. I seem to remember something like ” the weapons of mass destruction are somewhere to the east, west, and north…” and “we know Saddam Hussein has stock piles of anthrax, just look at this vial” and something about a mushroom CLOUD.
    ‘Bunch of totally pathological killer clown liars that are now writting books, happily retired, or safe in an undisclosed lair said those things; no prosecutions or unpleasant situations. WTF?

  6. Sarcasm aside (though it’s so hard to put aside), the entire right wing moral universe is really a kind of mirage. At the core is a vague kind of wealth worship/authoritarianism/tribalism, but even that really isn’t very coherent. This has actually intrigued me because I had to ask “what do these people believe?”

    From what little I can tell, nothing except, perhaps that they’re persecuted/victims, and thus anything is justified. But that’s it. It’s not even a core series of beliefs. They’re stuck in a massive wheel of delusions.

    These are people who’ve got their Samsara going.

  7. The world will be a better place with the dysfunctional Zimmerman clan behind bars where they can’t hurt anybody.

  8. This is hardly anything new for wingnuts. They’ve made heroes out of liars going back to G. Gordon Liddy and Oliver North.

  9. Well, the right’s support of the Zimmerman case isn’t as crazy as it might seem.

    There’s a credible witness who claims that Martin had Zimmerman pinned. The witness originally claimed he was beating Zimmerman up, “MMA style”, but has since changed his story – he only is sure that Martin had Zimmerman pinned at one point, and he won’t testify he knows who yelled for help. He assumed it was Zimmerman because he was on the ground – but didn’t see it.

    One thing that stands out is that, if Zimmerman was pinned, that doesn’t make him blameless. If he initiated a confrontation in which Martin felt threatened, and Martin used reasonable force to protect himself, then Zimmerman would still be at fault. You don’t get to pick a fight, and then kill the guy if he starts winning. But I do understand the perspective of “he was getting beaten up! he defended himself!”

    (Zimmerman’s relatively low level injuries definitely speak against his story of getting his head slammed into the pavement repeatedly, or getting blows rained down on him. The cops saw a bloody nose, maybe broken, and a small scalp laceration. The doctor the next day reported two black eyes – I’m not sure if the cops saw a face consistent with getting two punches that’ll cause a black eye. But I’ve been in fist fights as a *kid* and while I didn’t get a scalp laceration, I did get similar facial injuries. Without a witness showing that Martin was pummeling Zimmerman, or threatening him, my feeling that there was a reasonable fear for life or serious injury is lower based upon those injuries.

    • LongHaired — that one witness says he saw Martin attack Zimmerman and pin him to the ground isn’t news; that came out in May. My understanding is that witness testimony is terribly unreliable; people really do see what they want or expect to see. In this case, most of the other witnesses have said it was too dark outside to see who was doing what to whom. There also have been reports that the police who took wrote up the first reports led the witnesses into thinking that Martin attacked Zimmerman. In later interviews, they appear to have subtly coached witnesses into testifying that Martin was on top of Zimmerman. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if a few witnesses sincerely believe that’s what they saw even if it wasn’t what happened. But, as you say, even if that is what happened that doesn’t necessarily vindicate Zimmerman.

  10. The lovely Mrs. Zimmerman has more to worry about than a perjurry charge. By moving money in amounts of $9999 and $9990 (often multiple times on the same day) she was avoiding the reporting requirement that kicks in when the amount hits $10K.

    Avoiding that limit by doing this is called “structuring”, and there is a statute against it. Intended to prevent money laundering by criminals, it requires no other underlying criminal act, and is punishable by 5 years in prison and some hefty fines.

    But if there is another underlying crime, federal or state – like, say, perjury – potential sentence and fines double.

    So Mrs. Z could get a longer sentence for playing hide-the-cash than hubby could for manslaughter. Because he merely took a life, but with her, we’re talking about important stuff – money.

  11. Trayvon Martin should be a NRA hero.

    An unarmed teenager was attacked by an armed assailant who had
    no credible reason to stalk him and had been told by 911 to keep away.

    The latest claim is that the killer had received some lumps.
    If so, the victim attempted to protect himself but could not overcome the gun wielding aggressor.

    The NRA should be proclaiming to the heavens the right of
    victim Trayvon Martin to carry a weapon to defend himself.

  12. To anyone who would like to understand how these righties think, I can direct you to a free online book, written by Robert Altemeyer, a retired professor of psychology. He has written extensively on right wing authoritarianism.

Comments are closed.