There really is a difference between Libby's case and Clinton's

[dsc]

I will admit that both lied under oath. It is pure non sense that Clinton wasn't alone with Monica Lewinski and one only has to listen to the tapes of Libby's grand jury testimony to know he was lying. The difference is that Libby lied about relevent things and Clinton didn't.

What Clinton did with Lewinski was actually exculptive of the charges in the Jones affair. The charges in the Jones case featured a pursuing Clinton while Lewinski pursued Clinton. To put this in perspective. Say you have a gay teacher in Mississippi who is charged with sexually harassing a collegue of the opposite gender. Say he has two possible defenses. One is that he is gay, the second that he has an alibi. He gets to choose which defense to use. He doesn't have to state he is gay, when he otherwise has an alibi. That is what Clinton essentially did.

Libby, on the other hand, directly lied about exactly the issue in his case. The whole case was who was and who wasn't leaking Plame's ID. You can't get more central that that.

Yes, conservatives are quite correct that Clinton and Libby were different. They are just wrong about what the difference is.

[cassiepriam]

1. Who cares about a BJ? I care about people being murdered, tortured,

maimed. About govt officials being placed in danger.
And govt officials unable to do their jobs.

[unblock]

2. nevermind that jones's case was dismissed as meritless

whereas the destruction of a cia intelligence network is hugely important to our national security.

[dsc]

4. In fairness even a meritless case should have people tell the truth

but again, it isn't perjury if the facts aren't relevant.

[unblock]

9. certainly if the determination that it is meritless might be based on said testimony

not that that applied in the jones case.

still, no one can point to any specific statement clinton made that was a lie. his collective answers were clearly meant to evade asking the obvious question, but one could argue that the jones lawyers knew what they were doing in laying the perjury trap because they could have asked the obvious question in a very direct, simple manner and yet they chose instead to ask around it and to use quite peculiar definitions.

one imagines that they did this precisely to invite clinton to take the way out they offered him, to be able to answer truthfully without revealing the sexual nature of the lewinsky relationship, so that they could later call him a liar in the political, colloquial sense, not in the legal sense.

remember that the jones lawyers did not necessarily have jones's interests at heart. they were political hit men gunning for big dawg. jones was just their ticket to the hunt.

[WorldResident]

3. Clinton did not lie under oath

He did not go down on her. Silly distinction? Perhaps, but it was the one that was offered up by the special prosecutors.

[dsc]

5. That wasn't the lie

He stated he hadn't been alone with her, that was a lie.

[WorldResident]

6. Were they ever all alone in the White House together?

I think not ... ;) Legalese? Sure ... Factually correct? Yes.

[dsc]

7. by any reasonable standard of alone

they were alone. By his definition I would never be alone since I live in an apartment building.

[unblock]

10. not as an apartment building at all

different apartments are different residences, there are locks and even different legal rights to the different spaces. there is no such division between the oval office and the hallway or the next room. it's all part of the same office space. maybe you can distinguish between the office area and the residence area, but not within that.

am i alone right now because i'm in the home office and mrs. unblock is downstairs and mini-unblock is asleep in his room? hardly.

[BuyingThyme]

8. Difference: Clinton didn't fuck every American.

Libby did.