LIBBY vs. CLINTON: Ammunition for Dems, Read it and Weep for the Rest

[BroncoBuff]

It's about time to give some legal clarification to the DIFFERENCES between the perjury / obstruction charges of SCOOTER and BILL. I promise you Republicans that, despite being a Democrat, I am accurately stating the law and circumstances as they are.


BILL CLINTON lied about having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. This lie came in a CIVIL LAWSUIT against him by Paula Jones. This lie happened at his deposition in a law office, not in a courtroom (although the oath has the same effect). Clinton's attorney later stated what we knew - that the questions about Lewinsky had taken them by surprise ... the deposition happened before Linda Tripp. Accordingly, when Clinton took the oath, he did not yet know he would face questions about Lewinsky. Later, faced with the stained dress and Linda Tripp's recorded telephone conversations with Lewinsky (said recordings illegal in California and several other states), Clinton settled the lawsuit, and basically admitted he had lied.

Bill Clinton was then CHARGED by Newt's GOP majority in the House (impeached), and he had a trial in the Senate. He was AQUITTED in that trial. Although the Impeachment is a quasi-criminal proceeding, the ONLY penalty he could have suffered was getting fired.



On the other hand:
LEWIS "SCOOTER" LIBBY lied about from whom he had heard and to whom he had divulged the employment of Valerie Plame, who was at that time officially a covert-posted CIA agent (these are facts). All parties agreed that any and all discussion of Plame came about for one reason only: because her husband wrote an article in the NY Times, truthfully stating that he had fully investigated, but found no evidence to support Bush's State-of-the-Union claim that Sadaam Hussein had tried to buy uranium "from Africa."
Libby's lies were told to FBI agents investigating a CRIMINAL CASE headed by an Independent Prosecutor of CRIMINAL wrongdoing. Libby also lied in a federal Gand Jury courtroom. In that courtroom, the clerk held up a Bible, and Libby, knowing he was about to lie, raised his hand and swore to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." He then proceeded to lie, something he knew he would do prior to taking the oath.

Although the Special Prosecutor found no crimes had been committed, he charged Libby with CRIMES. Libby was tried on CRIMINAL CHARGES by 12 jurors in a federal courtroom presided over by a Republican judge appointed by Bush's dad. Libby was found GUILTY on all but one count, and the only juror who spoke said that the case "wasn't even close." Libby has never admitted he lied, he never asked for leniency, never discussed taking a plea-bargain, and has never expressed remorse for his crimes.

There's a big difference between lying in a CIVIL CASE and lying in a CRIMINAL CASE. People lie in CIVIL CASES every minute of every day. If you don't believe me, ask any of of a quarter-million chiropractors in the United States. In a criminal case, somebody who lies to protect another person is usually found to be an accomplice - an accessory after the fact. People also lie every minute of every day about having extra-marital affairs. However, 3,500 Americans have died in a war that Scooter Libby was convicted of lying about. That is NOT something that happens every day.


THE SHORT VERSION:CLINTON lied in a CIVIL case, and was ACQUITTED

LIBBY lied in a CRIMINAL case, and was CONVICTED

Any way you look at it, it's a big difference.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It's about time to give some legal clarification to the DIFFERENCES between the perjury / obstruction charges of SCOOTER and BILL. I promise you Republicans that, despite being a Democrat, I am accurately stating the law and circumstances as they are.


BILL CLINTON lied about having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. This lie came in a CIVIL LAWSUIT against him by Paula Jones. This lie happened at his deposition in a law office, not in a courtroom (although the oath has the same effect). Clinton's attorney later stated what we knew - that the questions about Lewinsky had taken them by surprise ... the deposition happened before Linda Tripp. Accordingly, when Clinton took the oath, he did not yet know he would face questions about Lewinsky. Later, faced with the stained dress and Linda Tripp's recorded telephone conversations with Lewinsky (said recordings illegal in California and several other states), Clinton settled the lawsuit, and basically admitted he had lied.

Bill Clinton was then CHARGED by Newt's GOP majority in the House (impeached), and he had a trial in the Senate. He was AQUITTED in that trial. Although the Impeachment is a quasi-criminal proceeding, the ONLY penalty he could have suffered was getting fired.



On the other hand:
LEWIS "SCOOTER" LIBBY lied about from whom he had heard and to whom he had divulged the employment of Valerie Plame, who was at that time officially a covert-posted CIA agent (these are facts). All parties agreed that any and all discussion of Plame came about for one reason only: because her husband wrote an article in the NY Times, truthfully stating that he had fully investigated, but found no evidence to support Bush's State-of-the-Union claim that Sadaam Hussein had tried to buy uranium "from Africa."
Libby's lies were told to FBI agents investigating a CRIMINAL CASE headed by an Independent Prosecutor of CRIMINAL wrongdoing. Libby also lied in a federal Gand Jury courtroom. In that courtroom, the clerk held up a Bible, and Libby, knowing he was about to lie, raised his hand and swore to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." He then proceeded to lie, something he knew he would do prior to taking the oath.

Although the Special Prosecutor found no crimes had been committed, he charged Libby with CRIMES. Libby was tried on CRIMINAL CHARGES by 12 jurors in a federal courtroom presided over by a Republican judge appointed by Bush's dad. Libby was found GUILTY on all but one count, and the only juror who spoke said that the case "wasn't even close." Libby has never admitted he lied, he never asked for leniency, never discussed taking a plea-bargain, and has never expressed remorse for his crimes.

There's a big difference between lying in a CIVIL CASE and lying in a CRIMINAL CASE. People lie in CIVIL CASES every minute of every day. If you don't believe me, ask any of of a quarter-million chiropractors in the United States. In a criminal case, somebody who lies to protect another person is usually found to be an accomplice - an accessory after the fact. People also lie every minute of every day about having extra-marital affairs. However, 3,500 Americans have died in a war that Scooter Libby was convicted of lying about. That is NOT something that happens every day.


THE SHORT VERSION:CLINTON lied in a CIVIL case, and was ACQUITTED

LIBBY lied in a CRIMINAL case, and was CONVICTED

Any way you look at it, it's a big difference.

Good work! :thumbsup:

[Spider]

LOL as if a repuke will let that stand in the way ............But good work Buff

[elsid13]

Nice to see Broncobuff's legal training is actually good for something. ;D

[baja]

Someone should send post #1 to Burton's office.

[jhat01]

Article 2, section 2 of the US constitution:

"and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

While I agree that Bush is a dolt....He was within his power to do this.

[cutthemdown]

Who cares Libby was an aid and Bill Clinton was President of the USA. For that reason alone you can't compare the issue of Libby's communtation with Bill Clintons problems. For one Clinton never had to be pardoned or have anything commuted. I don't even see how it needs to be discussed. Having said that Bush should have let Libby rot. It's not right to jeopordize our CIA agents. We want them to do a good job and want to stay with the agency. If we out them I doubt they will be of much use.

A better comparison is Clintons pardon of Mark Rich. That pissed me off because he actually was convicted and then ran off to another country. He should have had to do some time in prison. The thing is all presidents use this power, or abuse this power depending on what side of the fence your on. I don't get fooled by them. Basically the fed govt is the same regardless of what party is in control.

[Spider]

Who cares Libby was an aid and Bill Clinton was President of the USA. For that reason alone you can't compare the issue of Libby's communtation with Bill Clintons problems. For one Clinton never had to be pardoned or have anything commuted. I don't even see how it needs to be discussed. Having said that Bush should have let Libby rot. It's not right to jeopordize our CIA agents. We want them to do a good job and want to stay with the agency. If we out them I doubt they will be of much use.

A better comparison is Clintons pardon of Mark Rich. That pissed me off because he actually was convicted and then ran off to another country. He should have had to do some time in prison. The thing is all presidents use this power, or abuse this power depending on what side of the fence your on. I don't get fooled by them. Basically the fed govt is the same regardless of what party is in control.

small circles , Mark Rich had Scooter Libby as his lawyer

[cutthemdown]

small circles , Mark Rich had Scooter Libby as his lawyer

So then you agree it's a better comparison

[cutthemdown]

small circles , Mark Rich had Scooter Libby as his lawyer


To me that's just more proof that all these politicians care about is staying in office and keeping power.

[baja]

Who cares Libby was an aid and Bill Clinton was President of the USA. For that reason alone you can't compare the issue of Libby's commutation with Bill Clintons problems. For one Clinton never had to be pardoned or have anything commuted. I don't even see how it needs to be discussed. Having said that Bush should have let Libby rot. It's not right to jeopardize our CIA agents. We want them to do a good job and want to stay with the agency. If we out them I doubt they will be of much use.

A better comparison is Clintons pardon of Mark Rich. That pissed me off because he actually was convicted and then ran off to another country. He should have had to do some time in prison. The thing is all presidents use this power, or abuse this power depending on what side of the fence your on. I don't get fooled by them. Basically the fed govt is the same regardless of what party is in control.

You are absolutely correct, sitting presidents all make questionable pardons at the end of their term in office but the big difference with this Libby commutation is it serves to protect Bush himself. I can't understand what is so hard to understand about this.

The situation this Libby thing should be compared to is Nixon's firing of the special prosecutor in an effort to cover his ass.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

small circles , Mark Rich had Scooter Libby as his lawyer

:yep:

I can't believe the Bush apologists don't understand the difference between the Marc Rich pardon and the Libby commutation.

Do they really not understand, or are they just playing dumb?

Rich was a business man who violated a tax law.

Libby (the vice president's chief of staff) was convicted for obstructing an investigation into a high crime committed by someone in Bush's administration.

Nixon was forced to either resign or face impeachment for the same kind of obstruction of justice.

[TailgateNut]

Article 2, section 2 of the US constitution:

"and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

While I agree that Bush is a dolt....He was within his power to do this.


That's why he did it! He tried to prevent the "except in Cases of Impeachment" part! If Scooter Sings, somebody else is "getting the AX"!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

That's why he did it! He tried to prevent the "except in Cases of Impeachment" part! If Scooter Sings, somebody else is "getting the AX"!

:D

Yep.

Same thing Daddy did when he pardoned Weinberger and the Iran-Contra players.

Like father, like son.

[baja]

:D

Yep.

Same thing Daddy did when he pardoned Weinberger and the Iran-Contra players.

Like father, like son.

Actually I think in this case the father is quite embarrassed by the son.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Actually I think in this case the father is quite embarrassed by the son.

I'm sure Junior is an embarrassment to Poppy on several fronts.

However, in this instance, what Dim Son just did for Libby isn't much different than what Poppy did for Weinberger, et al.

[BroncoBuff]

Article 2, section 2 of the US constitution:

"and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

While I agree that Bush is a dolt....He was within his power to do this.

Nobody argues that it was within both presidents' powers to do what they did.

And I don't think anybody really argues that Clinton abused that power.

BUT ... Bill waited until January 19, on his way out the door. Nobody would protest (all that much) if Bush pardoned Libby on 1/19/09 ... AFTER he served 18 months in prison. The problem is, Bush announced the commutation just a couple hours after the Federal Court of Appeals denied Libby's appeal for a stay of execution ... meaning he could have been ordered to report to prison within a couple days.

That timing - along with the sudden change in strategy to become passive at the trial - definitel smacks of quid pro quo. Doesn't matter what party you belong to - those circumstances are fishy as hell.