President Bill Clinton made a small investment in a land deal in Arkansas and lost a few bucks.

[madokie]

Then he had an extra-marital affair, being a willing participant to a sex act, which btw there were several key repukes guilty of the same thing, bob barr and newtie gingrich being a couple of them.

Naturally the GOP had to "make things right" and "restore integrity to the Whitehorse." First they waged an eight year investigation, wasting millions of taxpayers dollars, published huge volumes of profanity on the Internet and on the evening news for all to see and hear including our children, all the while not producing any evidence of a crime by the Big Dog. Then they put a known drunk in the Whitehorse, wrecked the economy, caused untold numbers to lose their jobs by outsourcing etc. Ignored clear warnings of an impending attack on the World Trade Center, declared non-stop war on anyone who wasn't with us and squandered a budget surplus to give to their already wealthy financiers.

I guess it just goes to show that you really can't get away with an extra-marital relationship after all.:shrug:

just saying

[originalpckelly]

1. No, that's not all he did. He perjured himself under oath.

He's no better than Scooter, except that Clinton's lie was about something less serious.

However, it was still a lie under oath. I've never seen the supposed legal definition that Mr. Clinton was following as he replied, and if someone produces it I may reconsider my position.

But that is beside the point, both could have chosen to invoke their fifth amendment rights, but neither did so for political reasons. Had Scooter done it, there would have been a leak and political fallout, and the same applies for Clinton.

But both decided not to do that, they mislead the system. Perjury is one of the most serious crimes in our system, because it involves the justice system.

And neither Clinton nor Scooter should ever be pardoned for their crimes.

[Kagemusha]

2. There seems wide disparity over views on the seriousness of perjury

I didn't like the "it's just a lie about sex" defense at the time either but, what can I say? Clinton told the truth about what the Republicans were going to be like once they took power and what he said came true about THAT. I wish he hadn't frittered away his credibility beforehand but, props to the man for knowing his enemies. I view him as much redeemed for calling it.

[originalpckelly]

3. And the fact that he never had to testify against himself makes me very angry.

The SCOTUS has consistently upheld the 5th amendment's use in any area of government where verbal testimony is required.

I think people forget that in both cases.

[Kagemusha]

6. Either way, I'm glad Libby's conviction stands up for the system.

The fact there was an actual conviction on 4 counts seems to have shocked an unprepared Washington entirely too used to no one suffering for what's viewed as "political crimes" and there's been loud calls to pardon Libby because he would therefore be a "political prisoner". But that just speaks to the politicization of the legal system on top of the national security establishment. (See: US Attorney purge)

[originalpckelly]

11. Scooter's case is cut and dry false statements and obstruction of justice...

very clear motives.

[Toots]

4. Bull crap

Clinton did not perjure himself. What he told the Grand Jury was technically by the legal definition given him the absolute truth. However by the standards of America he lied to us. A blow job is indeed sexual relations to America if it isn't to the Law. He was never ever ever charged with committing any crime what so ever. Every single investigation, and there were many, came back clearing the Clinton's of any wrong doing, and boy howdy did that ever piss off the wingers. They threw everything they could muster (even making it seem like him getting a haircut was an evil deed), at him and he came off taller and better liked than before he was ever elected. No if he had committed perjury you can bet your bottom dollar he would have been charged with it and he most definitely was not.

[originalpckelly]

5. Do you have the legal definition used? Have you ever read it yourself?

I haven't, and until I see it, I will not believe this claim.

[Kagemusha]

7. I didn't feel the need to break a dictionary out because

what you said about lying about something of lesser seriousness was basically the point: a deception by omission that did not rise to the level of criminal sanction but which was nonetheless wrong to engage in. So it wasn't perjury on the merits, but it wasn't true, either, and the court took the action it deemed appropriate.

I'm not saying I necessarily agree but Scooter went way beyond that by repeating, standing by, and vehemently defending his implausible to the extreme story about hearing about Plame from the media as if it was new (to him).

[originalpckelly]

9. Regardless of whether he lied or not, I believe all will admit the seriousness...

of Clinton's lie under oath never will approach that of Mr. Libby's.

[trumad]

10. originalpckelly---you do realize that in every thread about this....

you are consistently the only one who sides with Ken Star and the Republicans who impeached Clinton. You've had countless explanations from us DUers as to why we didn't side with Starr...but they never seem to be good enough for you.

What's up with that....

[originalpckelly]

13. Oddly enough, I think this is the first time I've ever talked about it.

Because recently I heard Jonathan Turley, a person I consider to be highly credible, talk about Mr. Clinton's impeachment. I must say I trust his judgment, and I reconsidered my earlier position that Mr. Clinton didn't lie.

[madokie]

12. mr libby is a treasonous bastard

bill was covering his ass, big dif

this old vet thinks libby should at some point, swing for his crimes

[originalpckelly]

14. Actually, I'd say both were trying to cover their asses.

But both lied under oath when they had the ability to simply invoke the 5th amendment. And not only that, Ms. Lewinsky was instructed to lie as well by Mr. Clinton.

It's clear to everyone with half a brain, that Mr. Clinton's lie was several orders of magnitude less serious than Scooter's.

[madokie]

16. the two lies are not to be confused. on the face of it a lie is a lie thats all

one had grave consequences to many the other to no one except the utterer. I don't buy that the Big Dog's is in the same league as the treasonous one :shrug:

[originalpckelly]

17. I said that, why are you arguing with me?

:shrug:

[baldguy]

20. LoZoccolo posted this on Friday:

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

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=377146&mesg_id=377146

You should stop believing neocon propaganda.

[madokie]

8. You bet, all the while during the lewinsky phase of the investigation you couldn't set down

to an evening meal without hearing all about the sordid affair, no matter that we had small children in the home at the time, it pissed me off then and it pisses me off now. and all this was being brought to us by the "family values" folks too.

[City Lights]

15. LoZoccolo posted the legal definition the other day.

Here is the site he linked to.

LoZoccolo's OP can be found here.

[originalpckelly]

18. Now, I understand, and I can give a reference to show it.

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

1. 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;
2. Contact between any part of the person's body or an object and the genitals or anus of another person; or
3. Contact between the genitals or anus of the person and any part of another person's body.

Contact means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing.""

While technically under that definition, oral sex would have been included, the words "mouth" or "oral" were both missing.

For a comparison, here is the legal definition of "sexual act" from the sexual abuse statute:
"(2) the term “sexual act” means—

(A) contact between the penis and the vulva or the penis and the anus, and for purposes of this subparagraph contact involving the penis occurs upon penetration, however slight;

(B) contact between the mouth and the penis, the mouth and the vulva, or the mouth and the anus;

(C) the penetration, however slight, of the anal or genital opening of another by a hand or finger or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; or

(D) the intentional touching, not through the clothing, of the genitalia of another person who has not attained the age of 16 years with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;"

So on that charge alone, I'd say that's not an accurate charge, and I'd have to see the evidence submitted once again to prove the intent of Mr. Clinton.

That evidence alone leaves open very reasonable doubt that Mr. Clinton was not actually clear that oral sex was included obliquely.

[leftofthedial]

19. Clinton was never even charged with perjury

lie, yes. perjury, no.

Clinton did not obstruct a criminal investigation, because what he lied about was not a crime and was not a coverup for a crime.

It was in NO WAY on a par with what Libby did.