2007-07-03 07:46:39 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
And if Libby deserves jail why didn't Clinton?
2007-07-03 07:49:44 · update #1
No actually they both lied to a grand jury
2007-07-03 07:50:29 · update #2
Libby was convicted of lying. He got railroaded. Clinton lied but was not convicted by the Senate. Clinton was guilty but got a pass.
2007-07-03 07:49:42 · answer #1 · answered by regerugged 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Same crimes. Perjury and obstruction of justice. The only difference comes in the form of which side of the political spectrum you stand on. Liberals have tried every way possible to erase the crimes Clinton committed. Now conservatives seem to be doing the same thing for Libby. This after years of complaining about Clinton not being properly punished. The hypocrisy, beyond being extremely amusing is staggering beyond belief from both sides.
Nick B: Clinton was impeached. Impeachment is the process. He was not convicted as a result of the impeachment. Before you start calling others retarded you should really take the time to learn what you are talking about first.
Edit: Like I said hypocrisy. Just look at all the defenses of Clinton here. People! Bill Clinton broke the law. He lied under oath. He was found in contempt of court and lost his license to practice law for 5 years as a result. You may think that the crime resulted from a trivial matter, but it was a crime none the less. Here is what bothers me about all the Clinton defenders. When a President lies in a court of law while under oath it seriously calls his credibility into question on all other matters public and private. There is a lot of lip service from the left about government morals and ethics related to the Buish Administartion, the problem is you don't apply the same standard to the Democratic leadership. Now you want to hold the right accountable for doing the same thing with their silly defenses of Libby. Is anybody really surprised that our government is so screwed up when we the people cannot properly recognize and demand punishment for crimes committed equally?
2007-07-03 14:58:10 · answer #2 · answered by Bryan 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Libby lied about matters of government and public records. In other words, it was information the public had a right to know. He broke the law. Clinton lied about his personal life. The only people that give a crap about Clinton's sex life are the tabloids and Republicans who wanted him out of office. Guarantee you that if Bush did the same thing, you could care less. The truth is that Bill was put on trial for something that never should have been on trial on the first place. Your comparison is about the equivalent to if I tried to say that Newt Gingrich's affair on his wife was as bad as some liberal evading his taxes and that Newt should be tried for it. Doubt you'd defend the liberal in that situation. Doubt you'd question Newt, either. You'd say the same thing that everyone said about Bill Clinton: it is none of our business who he sleeps with. If you wouldn't, then you're a better man than most. If that's the case, let's get the Newt in front of a jury, pronto!
2007-07-03 14:53:14 · answer #3 · answered by Mr. Taco 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Since in both cases what was noted was lying under oath there shouldn't have been a significant distinction, however, Clinton's lying was impeached and then not found guilty. Libby's was convicted and the sentence was reduced (he still has a fine of $250,000 and 2 years probation as well as a record). The crimes, from a legal perspective are therefore not equal, nor are the punishments.
Think of impeachment as being indicted. It means there is enough evidence to warrant a trial but no trial has yet occurred. Therefore being impeached or indicted means that things are pretty darn suspicious but that no guilt has been determined.
2007-07-03 14:52:57 · answer #4 · answered by Matt W 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Both were accused of lying to Congress and of obstructing justice. However, Libby was actually CONVICTED of those things, while Clinton was not. (An impeachment is only a trial, not a conviction.)
And Clinton lied about getting a B J. Libby lied about outing a CIA agent.
2007-07-03 14:50:52 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Clinton lied about "sexual relations". Libby lied about his office's role in illegally disclosing sensitive information in order to misinform the public about motives for the Iraq war, and to discredit an opposing voice who had the facts and the outlet to make a strong case against the war.
One act was sexually motivated and dishonest. The other act was TREASON.
2007-07-03 14:55:02 · answer #6 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Libby was attempting to protect criminals who had committed a crime.
Clinton was trying to keep a shred of dignity after having been naughty.
The only reason Clinton had to lie was because he faced a hostile congress that made a state issue out of a private matter.
Get over it.
2007-07-03 14:52:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
In order to go to jail, you must be convicted. Clinton was not convicted, Libby was. Pretty simple.
2007-07-03 14:59:39 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Libby was tried by a Republican (member of Bush's team) Atty General and the case was heard by a Republican (Bush appointed) Judge
the Clinton case was all repubs trying to "get" him and couldn't, so they morphed there case into a sex deal, whih like all men, he lied about. You don't see George W Bush standing up and telling the American public, "Yes I made my girlfriendhave an ABORTION when it was ILLEGAL.
2007-07-03 14:55:57 · answer #9 · answered by Deidre K 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Libby was convicted, President Clinton was not convicted.
2007-07-03 14:58:25 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋