Myth: Clinton committed perjury. Fact: Clinton’s answers were legally accurate.

[LoZoccolo]

Perjury is knowingly telling a lie under oath, about something that is important to the case. To prosecute a false statement, the government needs to prove somehow that the witness intended to lie, rather than he was mistaken or confused over the facts. To eliminate ambiguity, confusion and opportunities for lying, lawyers often reject common-sense definitions in favor of legal definitions, which are more carefully defined. A witness who answers a legal definition accurately, in spite of what common sense says, is not committing perjury. The only requirement for a defendant is to answer questions accurately; he is not obligated to help the prosecution bring himself down, and has a constitutional right to fight vigorously in his defense. In Clinton’s case, no accusation of perjury survives these observations.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clintonperjury.html

Just something to remember as Clinton seems to be coming up in reference to the Scooter Libby verdict.

[DURHAM D]

1. Thanks for posting. Most (including many here on DU)

seem to accept as fact that Clinton committed perjury. It is constantly incorrectly repeated by Tucker, Tweety, Joe and repugs. Therefore, it has become a fact - even though it is not a fact.

A perfect example of how the complicit media can drive a lie.

Also, his response to their badly written definitions of sex shows what a good attorney he is and how quickly he can review a document, spot mistakes and respond appropriately. What was he supposed to do - help Ken Starr by pointing out that their questions had giant holes?

[rock]

41. "help Ken Starr"

Absolutely not. Our law is an adversarial system. The two sides are not there to establish a cooperative truth; they are there to see the other side doesn't take advange of their side (yeah, they want to win).

[karynnj]

71. I believe there were questions where his answer

was a lie - the main one was whether they were ever alone in a room. By any normal definition - they were.

[eridani]

89. You're misunderstanding. Perjury is NOT "lying under oath"

--it is lying under oath ABOUT A MATERIAL FACT. That is to say, Clinton's lie about consensual sex had nothing to do with the nonconsensual harrassment he was being accused of, just as a lie about how much you donated to charity has nothing to do with a trial which is about being involuntarily robbed.

If you are on trial for murder and you lie about your income tax return, that isn't perjury because your taxes would typically have nothing to do with a murder rap. Now if your alibi was that you were home filling out tax forms on the night of the murder, and the prosecution discovered that they were dated a week before, that would be perjury because it is a lie relevant to a murder case--a material fact.

[karynnj]

94. Oh, I see - it was not over a material fact.

As a non lawyer, I obviously completely missed that. I just wish Clinton would have simply repeted verbatim the statement he gave at the beggining to each question.

[eridani]

95. What I wish he would have said--

--is "Nunnayer beeswax. This is not a material fact to the issue of harassment."

[karynnj]

96. I agree - that would have been a great answer and would have kept him out of trouble

[Parche]

2. Clinton

I have been saying this for years.............
Also the question that he was given did not even pertain to the 'Whitewater' case
true, he should never have answered it, but he NEVER perjured himself, or as the
rightwingers always say...."He lied"..............

[ProfessorGAC]

16. That's The Key

It's not even necessary to spin this as "legally correct". The question was NOT material and if there's no materiality, there's no perjury. Cut and dried.
The Professor

[BOSSHOG]

31. My response to any right wing noise about "perjury" is quite simple

Accepting their premise that Clinton lied.

- If Clinton told the truth, nothing would have happened.
- If libby told the truth, cheney would be on trial.

[Buzz Clik]

3. Errr....

Wasn't he asked if he had a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky, and he denied it?

Damn, man. I love the Big Dog, but he lied straight out his ass. Is it your impression that the judge in this case made the decision about perjury based the opinions of Rush Limbaugh.

[WI_DEM]

4. It's like his inhaling/exhaling on marijuana--he doesn't consider a blow job sex

[WinkyDink]

72. No, I don't believe he WAS asked that general of a question (Of a "relationship".)

Moreover, "oral sex" (or, rather, the contiguity of the necessary parts) was, IIRC, carelessly OMITTED in the legal charges.

[tenshi816]

99. Neither does Newt Gingrich.

I grew up in Georgia and that's what a lot of people think (or used to think, anyway - don't know if it's still the case). I've often wondered if it's just a southern thing. When I was in high school, I knew girls who would do everything *except* penetrative vaginal sex, and they considered themselves good Christian virgins because their hymens were still intact.

[LoZoccolo]

7. That's all in the article.

Not only is it unnecessary to concede that Clinton committed perjury, it is inaccurate.

[DURHAM D]

12. Did you read the article? The independent counsel

wrote a bad question. They defined what sexual contact was and they left out certain acts as sexual conduct. That was not Clinton's fault - they screwed up. Please do your research - you are relying on the noise machine.

[Buzz Clik]

22. I don't listen to the "noise machine."

Why did Clinton accept the judge's decision? Why did he not contest the Arkansas Bar's decision to toss him?

Sorry, but this is more word parsing. My definition of "is" is the same as the dictionary's.

Clinton's my man, but .... good gawd.

[ieoeja]

42. Judge's decision on what?

No judge ever ruled that he committed perjury. Nor was he disbarred for lying. His disbarrment was along the same lines as a defense attorney not be permitted to enter a plea of not guilty for a client he knows to be guilty. He knew he had done what they wanted to know, but worked to convince them otherwise.

Truth be told, if he'd fought the disbarrment, he'd probably have won as a lawyer as a defendant should be treated like a defendant and not like a lawyer. But the disbarrment was meaningless while fighting it would have kept the issue alive that much longer.


As for what the meaning of 'is' is. I happened to be watching that live. The second he was asked the question, I started shouting at the television, "that is a trick question!" When he replied, "that depends on what the meaning of 'is' is," I laughed and shouted, "great catch!"

I am sorry that in all the years nobody ever bothered to inform you that he was being asked a trick question.

But now you know the whole story.

[Buzz Clik]

43. Well, I certainly know one interpretation of the story.

I knew the facts before this thread was started.

[ieoeja]

49. Like I said, I was watching it.

I didn't need anyone to interpret.

[LoZoccolo]

70. Good catch on your part as well as Clinton's.

:thumbsup:

[Catherine Vincent]

28. Many say they left it [the sexual contact he had with Monica] out on purpose.

The laywers knowing that Clinton was a lawyer himself that would pick up on that so he denied it. He was right but the media said he lied and ran with it. Partisan republicans in congress impeached Clinton for much ado about NOTHING and I (and many others) will never forgive them for that.

[TheWraith]

64. Actually, as I recall the IC did not write the definition.

They asked whether he'd ever had sexual contact with any government employee or something like that, and it was clarified for the record that "sex" was defined by the legal definition for sexual contact used by the District, which didn't cover non-reciprocal oral sex. At least that's my recollection.

[ComerPerro]

35. point is, there never should have even been a situation during which he was asked that question

there was no cause for any questions like that to be asked while under oath, as they were not in any way relevant to the issue.

But he was dumb enough to answer.

[madinmaryland]

54. Well, he did lie to the american people when he said that,

but how was the question phrased. I think he was able to parse the question and avoid answering it in a way that allowed him to skirt the question.

[DearAbby]

56. I bring up the fact

that the Monica affair was not material/relevant to the Paula Jones Case. How can they use a consensual affair as material evidence?
Perjury, giving false testimony relevant to the case.

I am angry too, I wished he would have said..."It is none of your business, and has no baring on this case."

[acmavm]

5. It looks bad for us when people here try to deny that what

Clinton did was not 'sex'. Parsing that phrase is really pretty damn petty.

The man lied.

[DURHAM D]

14. Did you read the details? You have missed the point. n/t

[acmavm]

19. I don't care what the Judge said. That was legal a technicality

that he jumped on and thought that he could get away with. Hell, old Billy always did think he was smarter than everybody else. And that the rest of the planet was too friggin' stupid to know what a sex act was when they were decribed to them.

Don't tell me about Billy's wounded dignity or whether he lied or not, because he lied.

[DURHAM D]

23. I guess you just like being wrong. Have a nice day. n/t

[acmavm]

32. Whatever. Ask Paula and Gennifer about the guy. He had quite

the set of family values.

Look, I never wanted to hear about any of this shit. I didn't think it was anybody's business if the guy was a pig. That was Hillary's problem. In fact, that's the one thing that I hold against the guy, in line right after the shafting he gave the working Americans.

And you have a nice day too.

[sinkingfeeling]

38. Yes, Paula Jones. Know her and the stories I could tell you about that gal.

But apparently you want to believe what you believe. I guess when you say he's a pig, it's because you know him as well? Can you explain how Clinton shafted working Americans? NAFTA?

[acmavm]

53. Believe me, I don't think she's any paragon of virtue. But then,

he's surely not either.

I say he's a pig because he has the morals of an alley cat, although I suppose its possible that he's reformed somewhat. I've always had this feeling that Hillary would be very very good at getting her revenge.

As for the working Americans he screwed 'em every way but sideways. Bill was and is to this day a corporatist.

[huskerlaw]

48. Except that

we don't care if he LIED. We care if he committed PERJURY.

Perjury, being a legal thing, does turn on legal technicalities. The OP is entirely correct. Given the definition that BOTH teams of lawyers agreed to, Clinton may have lied, but he did not commit perjury. It matters not how "the rest of the planet" would define sexual relations.

Lying is not an impeachable offense. Perjury is.

So what you're deeming merely a technicality, in reality makes all the difference in the world.

[acmavm]

74. So you can split that hair? Lying isn't lying unless it involves criminal

penalties?

[huskerlaw]

75. The post is about whether or not he committed perjury

it's not hair splitting at all.

Perjury is a legal term with elements that must be met in order to apply. Clinton's conduct did not fit the elements. Therefore, perjury did not occur.

Lying is subjective and not at all legally relevant. It also wasn't the topic of the OP.

What is it about the two that you can't seem to differentiate?

[LoZoccolo]

15. The parsing that you describe was based on the definition approved by the judge.

This from a page linked from the original page:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clintonjonesperjury.html

[ProfessorGAC]

18. That's Not Important

He lied. Yes. But, the question wasn't material to the case. It was set up to embarass, which has no legal standing or materiality. If the question isn't material, even a lie isn't perjury. Perjury requires the lie to be material to the case and to be intended to obfuscate the facts of the case being edjudicated. Neither was true. The parsing of words isn't even necessary.
The Professor

[Buzz Clik]

24. bingo.

[ieoeja]

45. When my wife and I separated...

... there passed a long time during which I was not active, i.e. didn't get laid. In time this became the source of much amusement for my friends. Then one evening one of my friends got married, and I was observed leaving the reception with one of his new wife's friends. The next day she asked me if her friend and I had sex.

"No. Well, she gave me a blowjob. But we didn't have sex."

Not one of the half dozen or so people present thought anything was wrong with that statement. They knew by context that "sex" meant intercourse.

Under the same circumstances, asked if I'd had sex I would probably have replied in the affirmative. But then, Clinton wasn't asked if he'd had sex. He was asked if he was in a sexual relationship. THAT is a phrase I would need defined legally before I would answer it. For example, I would not consider a one-night stand, even with intercourse, to constitue a "relationship", sexual or otherwise.

And by the definition that Starr's team (not Clinton's team as it is commonly mis-reported) came up with, Clinton did not have a "sexual relationship" with Monica. There is a reason the judge denied their definition the first time they presented it and only accepted it when they insisted that is the definition they wanted to use.

[faithnotgreed]

46. absolutely - and i dont know why we have to go over this again

he did have sex with ms lewinsky and he lied about it

there definitely has to be repercussion and responsibility about the whole thing
there was repercussion (the course that it took was ott and deeply hypocritical of many but thats another topic) but the taking responsibility seems to be the difficult part

now certainly people can and will argue endlessly about the legality and fine detail terms of the entire situation but regardless he handled the whole thing poorly from start to finish and gave the circling republicans the ammunition they wanted so much

[Toots]

83. But he committed no crime nor was he ever charged with a crime.

His Impeachment was totally a political event and not a legal one..

[halobeam]

93. any impeachment as I understand it

is a political event and not a legal one. If we impeach Bush, it's not legal action...it's political.. hence we say, impeach, then indict.

I'm just commenting, not at all making argument.

[eridani]

90. Lying is is not perjury--

--unless is is about a MATERIAL FACT.

[blm]

6. Clinton's lie never QUALIFIED for perjury charge. The lie has to be pertinent to the case

at hand. Clinton's lie was a personal embarrassment that had nothing to do with the case that was being judged, so it never rose to the level of perjury.

[leftofthedial]

8. Clinton was never even legally accused of perjury

Total 100% repuke lie.

[librechik]

9. Why don't the Pukkkes get incensed about the Feds digging into

Clinton's personal life for partisan gain? Don't they realize the precedent they set? Obviously the greater crime was to stalk and attack the president, not becasue of any crime or disloyalty, but over a personal matter. Even Gingrich felt it was right to shut up about his affair. What Clinton did was never a crime, but the foolish act of a gentleman.

[niyad]

10. k & r--my little trolls are going to spit when they see this.

[KansDem]

11. I've often wondered...

Clinton is extremely intelligent and he's savvy about the law...

During this deposition, he denied having "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky, as the court defined the term.

Naturally, the GOP screamed and hollered about Clinton's "lie," but I doubt if there's a single Rupub who wouldn't want Clinton as their defense attorney should the need arise...

[DURHAM D]

17. Frankly, at the time (and now) I just thought it proved that

Puritan Starr and his whole team knew little about adult sexual behavior.

[saltpoint]

13. With the transgressions of the Bush administration light years long,

I see even less reason to criticize Bill Clinton for the dalliance with Monica Lewinsky now than I did when it happened, and when it happened, I saw none at all.

If adultery was commited, then Mr. and Mrs. Clinton need to sit down over a tall pot of coffee and discuss things.

It's none of my damned business.

[Madspirit]

20. I think

The personal integrity of the president is our business. I just don't think it's a legal issue.
Lee

[saltpoint]

25. Yes, but his marriage is not our business. The Republicans insisted

that "The president is not above the law," and proceeded to try to drive him out of office and claim the mantle of moral leadership for the nation.

If the president can be driven out of office for an adulterous blowjob, then the same legal standard should be held for all citizens, whether in the public or private sector, for similar activity.

There wouldn't be anybody left to do any work at all, would there?

[Madspirit]

50. Thus what I said

It's not a legal issue. You only read parts of posts? <g>
Lee

[saltpoint]

51. I read pretty thoroughly. I posted against the notion of a legal

parsing of personal behavior when said behavior should not be in the domain of public speculation.

[Madspirit]

55. I said

I didn't think it was a legal issue. I do think it's our business if OUR president shags one of OUR employees, a woman seven years older than his daughter, in OUR White House. I am no sexual prude. I wouldn't give a fuck if they had an official White House Brothel. It's the lying and the cheating and the sneaking and the Lolita aspect I find unseemly and off-putting. I do not think it's a legal issue but I sure as hell think we have the right to know so we can make fully informed decisions about our politicians. I find him sleazy. Then he goes on Playboy, with his crotch in everyone's face, a shit-eating grin like..."aren't I bad, aren't I cute, wanna fuck". What...is he 14? I prefer my presidents to already be out of their adolescence.

I voted for him twice, knowing these things. I would vote for him again. ...but I don't like him and I don't have to. You might want to spend energy defending him to those who thought it was reason enough to drag into the courts. I don't think that. ...but I sure as hell don't have to like him.
Lee

[saltpoint]

58. Don't blow your stack over Bill Clinton. He's out of office and you

won't have to worry about him one little bit from here on.

His blowjob was none of my business. That was my point.

It's none of yours either.

[Madspirit]

59. In My White House with My Employee it surely is n/t

[saltpoint]

60. No, it isn't. Adultery is not illegal.

Your genitals were not involved.

[Madspirit]

62. NEVER SAID "ILLEGAL"

Do you see like every other word? Yes, his behavior in the White House sure as hell is my business so I can make decisions based on it. But I NEVER said it was illegal.

NEVER SAID "ILLEGAL"
NEVER SAID "ILLEGAL"
NEVER SAID "ILLEGAL"
NEVER SAID "ILLEGAL"
NEVER SAID "ILLEGAL"

Got it?

Lee

[saltpoint]

63. The White House is the people's house. All 300 million of us.

Not just yours.

Again, I read very well, thanks for your concern.

Adultery is not illegal; therefor impeachment articles should never have been introduced. Senior Senators of both parties tried to explain this to the sorry-ass Henry Hyde but he persisted and was defeated spectacularly.

He was defeated and the impeachment proceeding failed because adultery is not illegal -- let me repeat that again: not illegal -- and lying about it is not particularly a new thing in the course of human events, etc.

Republicans made this a moral issue where there wasn't even a legal issue worth fighting over.

You're peeking into the Clintons' window when you shouldn't be. Their marriage is none of your business.

[Madspirit]

66. Evidently you don't read well

I agreed...not illegal.

Just said I want to know.
Lee

[Madspirit]

67. ...but I give up

...because evidently you did see all the 14 million times I agreed that his behavior was not illegal.

Lee

[saltpoint]

68. I got it. I got it, Lee. You'd be surprised how many sentences I can

absorb in one sitting. Swear to god.

Your moralistic objection to Clinton's dalliance is pretty much the same thing Hyde used against him, and pretended it was a legal issue.

The impeachment proceeding failed for good reasons.

[Madspirit]

76. I don't expect

I don't expect perfection from our elected officials. Far from it. I voted for Clinton. Both times. I will vote for Hillary if she is our nominee. My PERSONAL preference would be that we had presidents who were not stuck in adolescence. That's just a personal preference...<g>
Lee

[saltpoint]

79. I understand. But that's not the point at hand. You and I cannot

monitor the private lives of presidents. We can't monitor the private lives of our neighbors.

We are not in control of other people's private lives. Many presidents, prime minitsters, and so forth have committed adultery over many years. You and I cannot control that. We should not be in a position to impose legal sanction over moral issues beyond our control. That's what happened in the Clinton/Lewinsky case; that's what an impeachment proceeding IS. It is a LEGAL proceeding. In this case it failed, and not least because the moral objection fueling it was absurd.

Gabriel Garcia Marquez, the Nobel lauriat, was asked his opinion of President Clinton's impeachmen case in the United States Senate. Marquez said of Clinton's opponents, "They are shit-eaters." He went on to suggest that the puritan strain in human societies is evil and not to be trusted.

The impeachment proceeding went on to spectacular defeat.

[Madspirit]

81. I agree with everything you say...

...and I agree about the puritan stuff. I already said I wouldn't care if we had an official White House Brothel and I wouldn't. It's not even the affair though am really glad to not be his SO. It's just with whom he had it...in private enterprise it's considered abuse of power to seduce very lowly employees...and her age...but I am aware a lot of people have no qualms about fucking somebody they are old enough to have diapered.

Personally, I also have no problem with someone having ethics. At least Clinton's lack of them are in personal areas, unlike Bush, the murderous sociopath. I even agree that rehashing this is totally unnecessary and even harmful to positive discourse. ...but I didn't bring it up. Someone defending him did. I merely stated my personal preference. It's a difficult issue. At what point does their private life become our business? Never? Nothing they do is our business? I just don't know. I surely do agree that none of it is impeachable or prosecutable nor should it be.
Lee

[saltpoint]

84. In the Clinton/Lewinsky matter I think Linda Tripp is the true headline.

It was her call to Ken Starr about the blue dress -- her betrayal of her friend's confidence -- her shitwork -- that started the whole thing in motion.

Tripp's punishment for her betrayal of a friend is that it will likely be extremely difficult for her to have many more friends for the rest of her life. What a pathetic soul to betray a friend for the power rush of bringing down a president.

[Madspirit]

85. No argument there

Linda Tripp is a real piece of work. A despicable human.
Lee

[niyad]

21. EXACTLY--it wasn't ANYBODY's business except hillary and bill.. what a sick bunch of perverts

in the repuke party--and all the while, THEIR actual affairs, sexual harrassment, pursuing of male interns, etc., were, and continue to go, unremarked for the most part. can we say HYPOCRICY?

[saltpoint]

27. Hi, niyad. I guess Ken Starr had given up on his doomed Whitewater

investigation and was about to leave to assume the Dean's post at Pepperdine when he was reached by Linda Tripp.

Something about a stained blue dress.

And you know the rest of the story.

Lurid, wasteful of resources, and divisive bullshit from the Right's "moral" angels.

[Toots]

97. If your President won't even keep his word to his wife why would he keep it to you?

As the Republicans said so very many times at the time "It is all about Character". It is not about illegal activity although I am sure there was plenty of that to go around as well. I don't trust Bill Clinton but I trust him more than most other politicians. I don't trust any Republican at all. I would vote for Bill Clinton in a heartbeat. He has some flaws, human flaws, but he seems to care deeply about America and it's people where Republicans only care about themselves.

[DefenseLawyer]

26. Quite true

One thing to remember as well, there was no "prosecution". This was a deposition in a civil case, where Clinton was smarter than the plaintiff's lawyers that came up with the stilted definition of "sexual relations". If you are asked a stupid question, you answer the stupid question. You don't say "Well, the answer to your question is X, but I think what you really meant to ask was Y". There is no doubt that Clinton did the right thing legally as a deponent, although in hindsight it may not have been worth it politically to have done so.

[DURHAM D]

29. Would have been nice if this thread could have actually been

the discussion that needs to be had about perjury (because too many are wrong about the charge)regarding Clinton. Instead we got folks on here that want to talk about a sex act 'cause they don't know the difference between a legal debate and a moral debate.

Thanks for trying.

[Mr. Ected]

30. Clinton's Grand Jury Testimony - In His Own Words

Mr. President, were you physically intimate with Monica Lewinsky?

CLINTON: Mr. Bittman, I think maybe I can save the -- you and the grand jurors a lot of time if I read a statement which I think will make it clear what the nature of my relationship with Ms. Lewinsky was, how it related to the testimony I gave, what I was trying to do in that testimony. And I think it will perhaps make it possible for you to ask even more relevant questions from your point of view.

CLINTON: And with your permission, I'd like to read that statement.

UNKNOWN: Absolutely. Please, Mr. President.

CLINTON: When I was alone with Ms. Lewinsky on certain occasions in early 1996, and once in early 1997, I engaged in conduct that was wrong. These encounters did not consist of sexual intercourse. They did not constitute sexual relations, as I understood that term to be defined at my January 17th, 1998 deposition.

But they did involve inappropriate, intimate contact. These inappropriate encounters ended at my insistence in early 1997. I also had occasional telephone conversations with Ms. Lewinsky that included inappropriate sexual banter.

I regret that what began as a friendship came to include this conduct. And I take full responsibility for my actions. While I will provide the grand jury whatever other information I can, because of privacy considerations affecting my family, myself and others, and in an effort to preserve the dignity of the office I hold, this is all I will say about the specifics of these particular matters.

I will try to answer to the best of my ability other questions, including questions about my relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, questions about my understanding of the term of sexual relations, as I understood it to be defined at my January 17th, 1998, deposition, and questions concerning alleged subordination of perjury, obstruction of justice and intimidation of witnesses.

CLINTON: That, Mr. Bittman, is my statement.

[NoGOPZone]

33. Great essay. Steve Kangas' website, in general, is one

of the best on the internets. May he rest in peace.

[gollygee]

34. Clinton had sex; Clinton lied about sex

I don't care whether it "met the legal definition of perjury" or not.

Now, having said that, I don't care in the slightest whether he had sex or lied about it because I don't care about his sex life, and it was irrelevant to his job.

Libby, Rove, Cheney, et al outed Plame and lied about it. I care about that because I care about their leadership capabilities (or lack thereof,) and it is relevant to their job.

[ComerPerro]

36. Whenever a RWer brings up Clinton, I always remind them of one thing:

At least he was willing to submit to testimony under oath, unlike any member of the Bush Administration. And they aren't even wililng to swear to tell the truth about 9/11!!!

[Mr. Ected]

37. Has ANYBODY Ever Read the Paula Jones Deposition???

Clinton was never even ASKED if he had sex with Monica Lewinsky.

He was merely asked if he recalled being ALONE with her.

He never denied it, by the way.

See what happens when the Repigs rewrite our history? Even staunch progressives are easily cowed.

[Mr. Ected]

39. Well, Check That, He WAS Questioned About Sexual Relations

But here is how the Court defined sexual relations:

"For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in sexual relations when the person knowingly engages in or causes:

Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;..."

Clinton counted himself as "the person", and answered in the negative...quite appropriately, actually.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clintonjonesperjury.html

[0rganism]

40. Sam Seder raised an excellent point that disarms the Clinton angle wrt Libby

Consider the effect if Clinton hadn't gone sideways with the truth during the Starr witchhunts: end of that investigation angle (and possibly the whole thing!), some embarrassment on his part, probably a bit of additional marital strife but nothing Bill & Hill weren't used to having anyway. Clinton lied (or whatever) for relatively minor consequences, and his stretchy truths had greater impact than the circumstances that led to them could have on their own.

Now consider, in contrast, what would have happened if Libby came clean instead of covering for his boss: PR disaster for the VP office, Dick Cheney and the entire bunch at OSP under investigation & possible indictment, unraveling of who knows how many scandalous threads in the sweater of deceit and corruption that is the Bush administration. Libby's lies ended Fitzgerald's investigation, as far as I know, and with it, any ability of the government to self-correct on the matter.

As a consequence, Libby's lies have done immeasurably more harm to the integrity of this country's government than Clinton's.

[Hepburn]

44. I read the entire essay...

...and the associated links. This is an excellent essay and I bookmarked it. Great factual detail and legal explanations.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

47. May Not Rise To The Level Of Perjury Due To Relevance, But It Was Absolutely A Lie.

I don't mind saying it one bit, as even though he lied I still overall consider the whole thing to have been immensely ridiculous. But he still lied. The parsing and analysis going on here and on that website is silly at best to me. That definition of sexual relations still captures his answer as a lie even in spite of what I consider to be false analysis on the site. The definition said intentional touching. He intentionally touched her with the cigar; period. To make an argument that 'he didn't directly touch her, the cigar touched her', is one of the most asinine things I've read and made me laugh at that site a bit. That's the kind of warped unrealistic spinning I expect from the other side, not ours. He intentionally touched her with a cigar with intent to gratify and arouse. Claiming otherwise makes us look amazingly silly in my opinion.

But I will agree that it was simply a bold faced lie and not criminal perjury based on the context.

[Catherine Vincent]

57. Still much ado about nothing. n/t

[saltpoint]

52. A DC couple agreed to meet for a play after work one evening during

the on-going Kenneth Starr investigation of President Clinton's dalliance with Monica Lewinsky.

They sat in one row together, the woman telling of her day's news, the man telling his, and waited for the play to begin.

"How 'bout that Starr investigation?" the man asked his date. "Is that Kenneth Starr an asshole, or what."

From the row behind them, a man burst into their conversation and angrily said, "Hey! I resent that comment very much."

Chagrined, the first guy said, "Sorry. Are you with the Starr team?"

"No," the guy told him. "I'm an asshole."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

61. Libby should'a hired Clinton's lawyer.

Or, at least one who was more able to manipulate the legal system with legalities. That's what they get paid for.

[rasputin1952]

65. Amazing that people bring this up again...The trolls are singing...

"come into my parlor, said the spider to the fly..."


With all that has happened to this nation under the bush regime, and we rehash this...

[LoZoccolo]

69. Go start your own thread that's more interesting if you do not like this one.

You can even start your own board nanny thread if you'd like.

[rasputin1952]

77. Lighten up...This issue is over 6 years old, why rehash it?

It will always be a point of contention as long as what are discussed are merely the art of semantics.

Can you tell me how many Legal Eagles have chimed in here, specifically those with some considerable federal experience. To bring a 6+ year situation up does nothing to contend w/the problems we are facing now. You will not change anything from the past because there is nothing to change. All that has happened is that passions have been ignited and nothing will come from it except more Dem dissension.

I chose to post in this thread after reading through the entire thing. I did not just post at the bottom to answer your OP, I was addressing the entire thread. Are you going to say I don't have the right to post in this thread?

[LoZoccolo]

80. I posted it because a lot of people are comparing Scooter Libby to Bill Clinton.

When someone defends against the charge that Clinton also perjured by saying "well at least when Clinton perjured..." it starts off on a false pretext. Clinton did not perjure, and no one has to concede that. Maybe you should go after all the people bringing up Clinton to begin with in conjunction with Scooter Libby, rather than the person who is actually here telling people that Clinton is irrelevant to Scooter Libby (me).

And at least one defense attourney has chimed in so far.

[rasputin1952]

86. I agree there is no comparison between the two...

For one thing Libby has been found guilty and Clinton wasn't, there is an immense difference between the two that some posters seem to have forgotten.

As I went through the thread, I noticed that the conversation had turned to a case for facts into a dissertation about the "morality" of Clinton's actions.

As I posted earlier, this was not directed at you, but most people will, hopefully, read through the entire thread and not get sidetracked into things that have little or nothing to do w/your OP.

FWIW, impeachment and trial are political manuevers essentially used to remove an individual from office; on the other hand, criminal procedures brought against an individual in the government are something quite different, just as the two verdicts were different. Libby was found guilty of lying under oath and obstruction of justice; Clinton was charged through articles of impeachment, but exonerated by the Senate. There is no comparison to the two.

And for the record, I hold no animosity to you or your OP, mere ly that because it became one more of a myriad of of divisive issues.

:hi:

[LoZoccolo]

87. Thanks; sorry I got all beligerent.

:hi:

[rasputin1952]

88. You're welcome...sorry if I offended you or if you took that as

my intention...:pals:

[WinkyDink]

73. Clinton did NOT COMMIT PERJURY, by definition of NOT having been CONVICTED.

That is the ONLY response, PERIOD.

YOU may think he lied.
I may think he lied.
The rest of the WORLD may think he lied.

But WITH NO CONVICTION, there is no legal COMMISSION of the crime of PERJURY.

Just like a murderer is NOT legally a murderer if he has not been CONVICTED of being a murderer. He can, however, forever remain an innocent-until-proven-guilty SUSPECT.

All righty, then.

[LoZoccolo]

78. I don't think that type of response will answer charges...

...of it being a politically-motivated acquittal. Here, the actual legal facts are presented to counter that and establish Clinton's innocence.

[Toots]

82. Clinton was never charged with a crime for anything

His Impeachment was a political event and not a legal one.

[WinkyDink]

92. "Acquittal" of and from what?

[cgrindley]

91. The dim none-too-slim intern totally smoked his pipe

that was sex. He lied about it.

Get over it. No one gives a shit about his infidelities. I certainly don't. I'm a little miffed that his taste was so poor and that he nailed an underling but I'm mostly over that now. It's been a long time.

[H2O Man]

98. I respectfully disagree.

There is a valuable description of the two primary types of perjury in Vince Bugliosi's "The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose our President." It is found on pages 77-86. the first type, which is not prosecuted, is called "self-defensive perjury." Bugliosi writes, "The above form of self-defensive perjury is precisely what took place in President Clinton's denial of having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky." (p 78)

More: "The second and by far most serious type of perjury is not where one is merely denying doing something, the commission of which would result in affirmative harm to him if disclosed, but where one lies under oath to further his own ends, particularly where in the process he is seriously hurting a third party, such as accusing an innocent person of a crime. That type of perjury, if proved, normally does result in a criminal prosecution." (p 80)

[endarkenment]

100. waterman strikes again!

Succinct and completely correct. Clinton lied about a blowjob, to avoid an embarassing admission. Stupid act on his part, but a minor offense. The criminal cabal in the white house has committed widespread organized lying and deception to further their depraved plans. Libby lied as part of their efforts to coverup their crimes. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead because of what these folks did.

[NDP]

101. Fact: No smart person wants to revive all of this foolishness during the 2008 Presidential campaign