Lets say Libby did lie under oath. (as if anyone reading this question could recall what they?

Question

did or said two and a half years ago today).... but lets say he did lie... why are libs so miffed that he is not getting jail time?

Should Clinton have been jailed for knowingly lying under oath?

Truth seeker.... try seeking truth.... Clinton clearly lied when asked about his sex scandle to a court under oath. Libby was set up by Chucky Schummer when he realized he could not set up Rove for Plame. Libby was asked to remember specifics of 2 1/2 years prior on a case that had no relevence. Clinton couldn't remeber what sex actually is...

LOL at Nightshade... you almost had a thought of your own at the end there... but I'm guessing you stole that one from someone else too...

BTW... I DO AGREE that someone that breaks the law should serve their time. I also believe in justice. Libby was the victem of a witch hunt. You have to be blind not to see it if you look at the case from begining to end. Did he try and cover his butt? Probably the best he could... what you fail to realize is that there was no basis for a criminal investigation. There was no evidence of foul play. It was indeed a witch hunt. I don't believe the man should be taken from his family and kids for someones egotistical dream of taking down someone in power and fabricating a story to do it. Because he tried to dance around it the fine and parole is fitting. Had Libby actually commited a serious crime then I would like nothing more to see him in jail.

Angelhunter... so you cry about this whole "lib" speech and then go right into your "neo-con" speech. LOL As for the rest of your ranting you obviously didn't read so you don't warrant any further response.

Answer 1

OK, Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice
but Libby also served in a Republican led Whitehouse, therefore the liberals are screaming their heads off about Bush commuting his sentence, they want someone (anyone) to go to jail.

Clinton, on the other hand is a liberal (one of them) so of course he should never be charged for any crime. I can not tell you how many times I have heard "You shouldn't be impeached for a BJ" , guess what folks he did not get impeached for a B.J., he got impeached for PERJURY and
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

Just so things are perfectly clear (Yes, I am talking to you
Truth Seeker) Clinton's perjury and obstruction charges had nothing to do with the Whitewater investigation ( there was barely anyone left alive to testify), it was during testimony in
the Paula Jones sexual harassment case. Libby was asked to remember something 2 1/2 years earlier, Clinton couldn't
even remember what sex was. Before any of you young know
it alls jump up and say that the Paula Jones case was thrown
out of court, the case was appealed and Clinton wound up settling for $850,000, by the way Bill Clinton is the first and
only President to face a civil lawsuit while being the sitting
President of the United States.

Now Clinton was not charged tried in a Federal Court, the
Arkansas State Bar Association, made a deal where they
would disbar Clinton for 5 years, if the Federal charges were
dropped. Bill then resigned from the US Supreme Court rather than face disbarment.

I think the conservatives let Bill of to lightly, we should not have
accepted the plea deal, BUT I would have bet my very last
dollar that if Clinton had been convicted in a federal court and
Al Gore became the President, Bill would have received a
full pardon, not just a commutation of his sentence.

Answer 2

I dunno...every case is different, and it doesn't matter what the 'other guy' did or what he got away with. None of that matters. Libby was indicted by a grand jury...he was tried before a jury of his peers...he had some very expensive lawyers defending him. The jury found him guilty. The judge, oddly enough was appointed by George Bush because he was a strict law and order man. So, in the end, Libby went through the system and he was guilty of the charges. It seems as if there's more to his commutation than meets the eye. Libby knew where the bodies were buried and with out an eventual pardon he's going to rat out his former friends. He may do it anyway! Let us pray...we need to know what the Bush administration is hiding.

Answer 3

Well, let see? Libby was the Chief of Staff for the Vice President of the United States of America, right? In a job like this one there is this funny little idea that one does not lie to a Grand Jury while being a former employee of the Executive Department. But, admittedly I am a little old fashion, because I did take Civics in High School! Also there is that old notion that everyone is responsible for his or her own action.
The Relationship between the actions of Clinton and Libby are irrelevant because the question is, "What is the legal and appropriate response to a question asked of a person during a Grand Jury?"
Clinton Lied and so did Libby, but the similarities or compatibles stop at that point! If Libby would have been honest in his answers to the Grand Jury, then he would not be a felon!
Apparently you missed that civics class! You see, each person is held accountable individually, not otherwise!
If Clinton lied, then he would have been forced out of Office. But, he was not forced out of Office!
Libby was forced out of his office, and Libby was found guilty!!!!!!
So, poor Libby, he will have to vacation at the Bush's private beach! I do feel sorry for him!
Bill Clinton will have to allow his wife to make decisions for the United States, thank God for good weather!

Answer 4

First, get off this "libs" stuff! It's a sure sign of a neo-con puppet incapable of independent thought. Conservatives, real Conservatives, also object to the commutation.

Secondly, you start your question with "Let's say..." as if he hadn't been indicted, then CONVICTED on four felony counts by a jury, with the sentence being validated by a judge (a Republican appointed Judge) under federal sentencing guidelines instituted under a Republican administration.

Libby's crimes involved conspiracy to commit treasonous acts that, in the past, would have resulted in far more than the slap on the wrist sentence he received. And yes, when it involves treason, most would remember what they said.

Clinton's crime? Lying in response to a sleazy, irrelevant question posed for no other purpose than to cause embarrassment to a sitting President. This lie, in fact, showed him as capable of acting like a gentleman (refusing to compromise the reputation of the woman he was involved with) with class and dignity, things a neo-con could never understand. They're far too busy obsessing over what's going on in other peoples pants and snickering in the corner like a bunch of 10-year-olds.

By the way, Clinton was NOT convicted. You didn't get prison time without being convicted back then, a situation that has since been remedied by our current All-American Administration. You did know that, right?

As for "no basis for the investigation," this is purely a figment of your imagination. The CIA forwarded a criminal complaint to the Justice Department for investigation. A crime was, contrary to clearly false neo-con propaganda, committed. What Libby did (obstruction of justice) was to hinder that legitimate investigation to the point that it could not be carried out effectively and to a conclusion. In other words, he is no different and no better than those who promote the "No Snitches" campaigns in our inner cities, which I'm sure you would find horrific.

.

Answer 5

There are a lot of people who have lied under oath and gotten exactly what Libby is getting now: a fine and some parole but no jail time!

Now, when it comes to the Clinton scandal, the weightier a person's position, the greater responsibility they have to uphold the law and set correct examples.

Still, Clinton didn't deserve jail time, either. However, he did deserve to be thrown out of office for making a joke out of the same and he did deserve a hefty fine and he did deserve to face the same conviction that Libby was given and put on parole for a similar amount of time.

Why these same Libby scoffers aren't up in arms about Clinton's great getaway is lost upon me. He is the one who should have faced grave retaliation for not following the letter of the law.

Answer 6

Yes, you are right. Sandy Berger's lies, the continuing lies about 9/11 and Oklahoma City and failure to get Bin Laden, the lies by Joe Wilson, (if you follow his contemporary reports not his revisons years later), all ad up to a disturbing picture of no one telling the truth about the failure to prevent bad things happening, all we know for certain is nothing spectacular has happened since 9/11, but it's becoming apparent that terror related incidents like the Salt lake City shooting, will be made to look as non-terror related. If you show me an honest politician in Washington (or any place) that never lies I would faint. How do you think they get elected? By honest campaigning and clear thinking people deciding who the best qualified person is for the job? It's all a matter of compromise, those who get sloppy are the ones who get caught, it's the fact that they look foolish and lose credibility that neccessitates they leave office. I'm looking at joining some third party, reformed tree worshipping druid pygmie cannibals or something respectable sounding like that. See my question on Hegel, and maybe read George Orwell's "1984" sometime for kicks.

Answer 7

Libby knew full well he lied. He was acting on orders from Bush and Chaney when he outed Plame and when he perjured himself about it. Since he didn't rat on Bush and Cheney, Bush had no other option but to commute his sentence. And he will pardon him in 1 1/2 years.

I do think lying about a matter of national security is a bit more serious than lying about a BJ. Clinton should not have lied. He should have laughed in their faces and given them the finger.

It was Bush who stood before the cameras and said whoever outed Plame would be sent to prison.

Answer 8

Thats what I was just going to say. Lets go back and put all known perjurers behind bars. So what happened to Clinton anyway. What did they take his library card for a month or something? That must suck.

(There was a hot librarian there)

Answer 9

Libby was CONVICTED in a court of law. Clinton was not. Clinton was set up. His "lie" was about sex during an investigation about real estate deals. It had nothing to do with the case. It was not pertinent . therefore, it was not perjury. No court would convict anyone of perjury when it is not pertinent to the case.

by the way, if I committed a felony two and a half years ago, I would definitely remember it.

Answer 10

Libs think Slick Williemis God, they would NEVER support any punishment for him. All the Libby verdict proves is that a Republican can't get a fair trial in DC.