Should have Clinton have gone to Jail for the same offense as Libby?

Question

Clinton admited to purgery similar to Libby. Why was he alowed to plea bargen his way out of it. Why didn't we put him on trial like Martha and Libby?

Answer 1

Of course he should have. I saw in the news earlier tonight, Hypocrite Hillary and Wild Bill were campaigning in Ohio, and HH was giving Bush hell for commuting Libby's sentence. In her loud, preaching voice, emphasizing every syllable, she condemned George for his unthinkable, irresponsible, this has got to be stopped, actions. All the while, standing close to her was smiling Bill. I almost laughed out loud. They were acting as if Bill had NOT also been convicted of perjury, got out of it with a slap on the wrist, as if Bill had NOT pardoned 15 Puerto Rician terrorist, against the pleas of the Attorney General, along with several hundred other people. This is what scares me about Hillary..... She interprets reality to be what she wants it to be , not what it is. And she expects everyone else to go along with the lie, just because she said it. And a lot of people do.

Answer 2

Clinton was acquitted unfortunately and equally unfortunate Libby was found guilty. What's even worse is that Libby was innocent and Clinton was guilty. Still haven't figured that one out. Clinton lied to a Federal Grand Jury... Yes he lied check the transcript. He argued about the definition of "sex" and "is" and tried as best he could to cloud the issue. Libby does nothing really wrong gets convicted on bogus charges. Some of these answers... It's unbelievable! How can some people be so clueless? First of all, what "outing?" The fact that Ms Plame worked at the CIA was common knowledge in most Washington circles long before the Novak article ever came out. In fact, if those who are so sure of themselves would take the time to do a little research they would find that the first “public” mention of Ms Plames’ CIA employment was made by none other than her husband in an editorial he wrote and subsequently his book published several years prior to the Novak article. At the time of the so called “outing” she was not covert, undercover or in anyway considered an operative as defined by the "Intelligence Identities Protection Act." Violation of which is the basis of Libby’s trial. She was/is an analyst. All anyone had to do to verify she worked at the CIA was to wait outside the building any morning and watch her walk through the door to go to work. She had not been in a “covert/operative” status in over five years. But then these are the facts and they only serve to get in the way of the agenda. The real problem Libs have is their primary target of this so called investigation, Karl Rove, was completely cleared. Bottom line is this, with liberals there is a double standard which they usually, with the help of the media, keep camouflaged. However, when it's this blatant they resort to name calling, mis-direction and out an out lies. Liberals have always hated facts because it really makes it hard to accept their lies and half truths.

Answer 3

Great question. Clinton was talking about a personal affair, Libby was talking, indirectly, about a national security matter. But lying on oath is a crime either way. There are solid differences, but they're all so twisted by politics, it's impossible to see straight.

Answer 4

he was on trial for it. he was found innocent- where were you?

I was still in grammar school when it happened and I remember watching the verdict.

clinton's lies were different libbys. it had nothing to do with national security.
also libby had an obstruction charge- which in this case is very serious.

Answer 5

Clinton lied to Congress about an adulterous liaison between two consenting adults.
Libby lied to Congress about national security issues.
Clinton went through impeachment proceedings.
Libby got off scott-free without serving one single day for his treason all because Cheney wanted to save his own a*s. -RKO- 07/02/07

Answer 6

Yes he should have gone to jail. The media seems much more critical of conservatives than liberals.When are they going to start digging into the Clinton's (both Bill and Hillary's) past... probably never.

Answer 7

Clinton was very careful not to have solid proof of any his crimes in legal evidence, but it was enough to get him disbarred. He lied under oath, and that was perjury. He did have to accept a legal decision against him in the Arkansas bar, and sign a guilty statement.

Answer 8

Does it matter... Libby was pardoned anyway...
They are both above the law in my opinion

Answer 9

I think we should have did something I don't know if putting him in jail would have been the right thing but he should have been taken out of office for it

Answer 10

The simple answer is politics.