What's the difference between Libby and Clinton?

Question

The GOP impeached Clinton, not for sex, but for lying to a grand jury about it. So why are some Republicans calling for Libby to be pardoned because he was "only" convicted of lying to a grand jury, not of a crime the grand jury was investigating? What's the difference?

P.S. Clinton was impeached -- it means he was accused. He wasn't convicted.

Answer 1

Agreed. There is no excuse for perjury. Actually Clinton was impeached, he just wasn't found guilty in the Senate.

Answer 2

First let's get this straight. Libby was convicted of a crime that was not the primary duty of the grand jury to which he misspoke about time lines which he was clearly uncertain of to begin with. Very simply if you say one day that it was 5:00 when the sun went down and then 2 weeks later you say it was 5:15, did you lie? Further, Libby was testifying in one case to the grand jury. Under the rules and laws for grand juries, they are supposed to look at the facts for the case they were seated. Here they took exceptional freedoms looking for any crime that was committed.

Clinton on the other hand knew full well what he was doing and was well aware of why he was doing it. But I think you are looking at the wrong Clinton here. Hillary did exactly the same thing that Libby did and she was not even brought to trial.

Finally, if Clinton, both of them, walks then Libby should walk. Further, you can see this whole thing was a witch hunt by the liberal democrats because the judge would not even let Libby out on bond while his appeal was being heard. Total mockery of justice.

Answer 3

Granted both did the same act of lying to a grand jury, one was doing so in a case pertaining to national security issues and the other was about sex in a personal manner. Little bit different and I am sure it was viewed that way. Clinton was never actually impeached. Yes they had the votes to impeach him but it never actually took place. FYI.

Answer 4

Libby was convicted, Clinton wasn't. Libby's offense had to do with national security. Clinton's was a personal matter. Libby lied in criminal court. Clinton testified in Civil Court (he was never convicted of lying. He testified that he wasn't currently having an affair not if he had ever had an affair). Clinton admitted his mistake and apologized for it. Libby never did.

Answer 5

They both lied to a grand jury. They both should have the same consequences. If Libby goes to jail, Clinton should. If Clinton doesn't, then Libby shouldn't.

Answer 6

the difference is Libby was covering up a federal offense that could be construed as treason, Clinton lied in a civil trial, about something unrelated to the case and something that should have never allowed to have been asked in the first place.

Answer 7

You will never get a Republican on sex crimes, because they only like young pages or their so fat and funky that no woman would waste their with fiddling with them. Answer me this how can you put a Con and Lib, together and every time before they open their mouth you know which is which. The Conservatives all look like if you touched them they would break or jump and start cheer leading and the Dem's just have that Marlboro Man look.

Answer 8

Clinton was acquitted in the senate. Libby was found guilty by a jury of his peers. That's a huge difference, don't you think?

Answer 9

Clinton's Judge was in his pocket, she will probably be a part of Hill's administration. Libby had no such luck but will get his pardon. That is where Clinton was masterful. Check his record he par donned more than any other except Carter. Including family members b4 leaving office. Thanks.

Answer 10

I guess the actual crime doesn't count - just sex scandals. The GOP can dish it, but can't take it.

Actually Libby's outing of a US spy is /was technically treason and a breach of national security. But again, no sex scandal.