2007-03-12 15:15:02 · 7 answers · asked by james B 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Much more. Clinton's perjury was about questions that should never have been asked of him. The judge who nailed Clinton for perjury reversed her original decision and declared that the questions had no bearing on the case at hand and were not material. She determined that she erred in ever allowing those questions to be asked of Clinton.
What Clinton had done was already done at that point, but remember, how material the matter at hand is does weigh on perjury charges.
Pretty much every legal prosecutorial expert, at the time, all agreed that Clinton would not be charged with perjury in a criminal court. Keep in mind that Clinton was lying to avoid personal embarrassment about a completely legal private matter between consenting adults.
Libby, on the other hand was covering up an abuse of the powers of political office. A covert agent was outed, her work on WMD proliferation monitoring was ruined, all her contacts and all the contacts of her front company compromised and people were almost certainly rounded up, tortured and killed as a result.
Ongoing efforts at monitoring WMD proliferation in Iraq and Iran were destroyed. Past work and contacts were undone. Future contacts were compromised because potential informants and turncoats would have no belief that their CIA contacts would be able to protect them when the top of the administration was willing to out their own as political payback, The damage done by this was on a massive scale.
Furthermore, what came out in trial was that this was a scheme specifically approved by the highest levels of authority in the administration. His lies thwarted and prevented Fitzgerald from getting at the perpetrators of the more serious crime. Many talk about how the "leak" charges were never brought, but when Libby was indicted, Fitzgerald pointed out how Libby's dodging and weaving prevented him from getting at the underlying crimes.
It's like if someone was murdered and I disposed of the body and stalled the police until evidence could not be found. I'd be charged with obstruction of justice and conspiracy charges, but the actual killers would have gotten a walk on the murder itself. Does that mean I shouldn't be charged with my crimes, because I successfully thwarted the investigation into the more serious crimes? Of course not.
Remember, Al Capone went to jail for tax evasion, not for being a murdering thug.
2007-03-12 15:45:07 · answer #1 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is the same crime. No more and no less.
If you take into consideration what they lied about then an argument can definitely be made that there is a difference in the severity of the situation (sex vs. the outing of a CIA agent), but the crime is the same.
What I think is really telling is that Republicans are jumping all over themselves to excuse Libby, but were screaming bloody murder about Clinton. I guess it shows the priorities. That being said, the law is the law.
2007-03-12 22:17:35 · answer #2 · answered by Mrs. Bass 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
perjury is perjury. Clinton lied about something he never should have had to answer except to his wife. Doesnt that tell yuo something about his charcter though? Libby lied about a crime that never happened. All it boils down to is in both cases it is nothing but a political witch hunt. Both should be and have been prosectuted to the ful extent of the law though because perjury is a crime no matter what
2007-03-12 23:09:26 · answer #3 · answered by rizinoutlaw 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Libby was convicted. Clinton was acquitted.
But perjury is equally bad. Without integrity in the legal system, the system as a whole crumbles.
2007-03-12 22:33:16 · answer #4 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Actually more, because Clinton changed the definition of
his statement without altering what he said, a genius move. Libby is not that astute. So his statement came to define him instead of the other way around.
2007-03-12 22:33:08 · answer #5 · answered by Gerry S 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Clinton lied about cheating on his wife
Libby lied about the lies Bush and Cheney told to America in their efforts to gain the support needed to invade Iraq,, and an article in the NY times about Joe Wilson,, not written by him,, subsequently leading to the outing of his CIA agent wife, Valarie Plame
now,, let the taxpayers decide which is more criminal.
2007-03-12 22:26:36 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Libby did not commit perjury. The only crimes were committed by the prosecutor.
2007-03-12 23:38:51 · answer #7 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 1⤊ 5⤋