Dp republicans regret openeing the door to investigate non crimes?

Question

I see many are upset that Libby was found guilty of perjury, when he was lying about a non crime. Clinton did the same thing. Do reps now regret opening that door?

Answer 1

I don't have problems AT ALL with prosecutions for perjury or obstruction - as long as the jury understands what it's doing, gets all the relevant facts, and it is not distracted by other, irrelevant facts.

By the by, the law that allowed the Monica Lewinsky line of questioning was a law Clinton signed himself.

Usually, evidence of "other similar acts" is not allowed in a criminal trial or civil suit. If the state charges someone with robbing a bank, it is generally NOT permitted to introduce evidence that the defendant robbed other banks.

But it is allowed in some cases. One is a law whch, in cases of sexual harrasment, allows a plaintiff to introduce evidence of a "pattern" of sex for favors, etc. In other words, show that the defendant has done it to others. Evidence of Clinton's treatment of other employees, interns, etc. was therefore relevant.

I believe at one point Clinton friends helped Monica Lewinsky get a job at Revlon. Not in and of itself a problem, but enough if a sexual relationship was present to allege a pattern of "sex for favors." THAT'S why the testimony was allowed. I bet lots of people didn't even know that!

If people think this line of questioning is improper, that law should be repealed. To my knowledge, it has not been, and no politician has even called for it. It was deemed a big breakthrough by feminist groups when passed. I believe that the harassment trial (civil case) took place in Arkansas - the Paula Jones case. The alleged perjury and obstruction of justice occurred in DC and Janet Reno authorized Ken Starr to include it in the Whitewater investigation. Reno probably wanted to be sure it was investigated in a nonpartisan manner, as Ashcroft did with Libby - so both AG's turned the case over to others.

There have been allegations that Fitzgerald was just "fishing," since he knew early on that Armitage - an Iraq War critic - was the source of the leak. I don't know the timeline.

Once someone lies to investigators, they take it personally. We all should.

I have many concerns about other aspects of the case (Fitzgerald should NOT have constantly referred to any "covert status" if he was not charging it), but perjury and obstruction are serious.

All I want are for the SAME rules to apply to everyone.

That's one reason I'm not the right person to post on a political message board! :)

PS It's hard to keep it all straight - I THINK it went like this:

The Paula Jones case, and the contempt of court citation for Clinton - were in the Arkansas court. A civil case - looking for money damages.

The impeachment and trial was of course in Congress, to determine whether or not Clinton would stay in office. It was totally separate from any criminal trial.

I THINK what happened in the end was that once the penalties were imposed in the Paula Jones case, there was NO prosecution in DC for perjury or obstruction of justice, as there could have been. Clinton lawyers wrapped it all together, in an agreement with the Jones lawyers (he paid some money), the Arkansas bar, and Starr's successor as special prosecutor - a "plea bargain."

Yeah, I checked it - that's basically what happened.

I remember people saying that Clinton could still be tried for the crimes of perjruy and obstruction whether he was removed from office or not - they are totally separate.

PPS I'm really curious as to whether people favor the law I described, about sexual harassment and showing a pattern. Maybe I will ask a question myself!

PPPS Yet another parallel in the cases: Paula Jones was, in many ways, NOT a sympathetic figure. The one-on-one with boxing match Tonya Harding, I believe, will be the lasting image of her. Joe Wilson, also, seems to have told many varying stories, as I pointed out in other questions. Plus, some hove questioned how covert his wife could be if he was writing op-eds in the Times! We'll agree to disagree on that.

So in each case, you have a possibly "questionable" initial claim (or claimant) against a person in power. But again the responsibility for the lie ultimately rests with the one who told it.

Answer 2

I'm incredulous watching the self same people who screamed and hollered about obstruction of justice and perjury during the Clinton investigation.
Now,it's not a real offense in their eyes.

There is no longer anything like a a shared truth in this culture.There are two truths.One has everything to do with the facts and the other is about ideology and politics.

Conservatives claim to be the arbiters of Right and Wrong in America.They proclaim a respect for law and order.Except apparently in the case of Scooter Libby and those who stand behind him.

Answer 3

The huffington submit & the on a regular basis Kos are the two in actuality liberal propaganda. i will examine out the Examiner. Is that like the Enquiror? i assume i will see. - - - - the item interior the examiner gave the transcripts yet whilst analyzing the transcripts it replaced into glaring Obama replaced into backing remote from the thought of such an learn. He stopped purely wanting asserting "NO! i won't be able to check out Bush for any crimes!" And somebody needed plenty to beleive such an learn might happen that they study that as "leaving the door open."

Answer 4

Absolutely!

And it is even beyond that. I think the party as a whole regrets the "get Clinton" impeachment movement that wasted millions of dollars in an exercise that can only be described as intellectual diddling.

Now the shoe is on the other foot and it is pinching just a might!

Answer 5

Clinton was being sued for sexual harassment by Paula Jones which is what led to the investigation. Are you suggesting sexual harassment is a non-crime?

Libby was investigated for outing a non-covert agent. That is not a crime by any definition.

Cheers.

Answer 6

I actually cast an inconsequential vote (I was in Kansas) for Al Gore in 2000 because I thought the Republicans acted childish with Clinton. The democrats have redefined childish since then.

Answer 7

i am sure they are, seeing how a lot of them are in trouble.