OK, so both are perjuries. But there is a difference between lying

[question everything]

about sex with an intern and about outing a CIA agent.

One would think that those super patriotic republicans - who love to wrap themselves in the flag more than actually wear the uniforms defending the flag - would be the first to figure that out.

On Wolf Blitzer earlier, someone - do not remember the name - detailed how damaging this exposure was and how several foreign governments are now tracking its own citizens who had "business" with her cover.

These are the lowest of the lowest and this is what Democrats have to emphasize. And they are the one who are supposed to be "security conscience?"

[BattyDem]

1. Do we know that the charge will be perjury?

I know that's the rumor, but as we've seen the last couple of days, rumors mean nothing.

Wouldn't it be hysterical if that's not the charge and the GOP spent all that time and effort defending it for nothing? :rofl:

[progressivejazz]

2. Are both really perjuries?

I seem to remember that for a false statement to be perjury, it must have a significant bearing on the case. Did getting BJs from a willing intern have a significant bearing on the Paula Jones case? I don't see it. But when and to whom information about an undercover agent was divulged sure has a significant bearing on the case before Fitzgerald--it IS the issue.

[Kagemusha]

4. Well, it had tangental bearing in a civil suit about bad behavior

Clinton wasn't expected to pick and choose what questions he should have to answer (That is a judge's decision) but, what he did would fall under an untrue statement that wouldn't be generally prosecuted for perjury. Which is not to say it couldn't be; it's to say that most prosecutors - and the Senate of the United States - wouldn't bother making that huge an issue out of it.

The key element is motive. Clinton's was to avoid personal and professional embarassment. While not excusing what he did, the motive was a far cry from active, willful, repeated obstruction of an investigation about a matter of national security authorized by the Attorney General of the United States to throw prosecutors off the trail of a complex scheme to conceal the truth about the making public of a CIA agent's non-official cover. This is where a prosecutor gets very mean and makes an example out of people for attacking the legitimacy of the legal process itself.

[tulsakatz]

6. excellent point!!

you said:

'The key element is motive. Clinton's was to avoid personal and professional embarassment. While not excusing what he did, the motive was a far cry from active, willful, repeated obstruction of an investigation about a matter of national security authorized by the Attorney General of the United States to throw prosecutors off the trail of a complex scheme to conceal the truth about the making public of a CIA agent's non-official cover. This is where a prosecutor gets very mean and makes an example out of people for attacking the legitimacy of the legal process itself.'



Even if Rove and Libby did not realize they were doing anything illegal when they outed Plame, they certainly knew it was wrong to lie about it when they testified to the Grand Jury!

Yesterday on Hardball, Pat Buchanan made a comment....as far as he could see, there was no original crime when they outed Plame. But he added that if they truly did nothing wrong, why did they have to lie and cover it up?

I think that's a valid question!

[Toots]

11. And that is why he was never charged with Perjury

He did not commit Perjury. In fact he didn't even LIE under oath. He lied to the American people but not under oath. Using the definition given him by the IC he did not have sex with Monica and that was the definition he was required to use.

[papau]

3. Clinton PERJURY CONVICTION NEVER HAPPENED

Clinton PERJURY CONVICTION NEVER HAPPENED

In the civil suit the judge cited and fined him for contempt for misleading testimony - testimony that was literally accurate and truthful but effectively misleading. That's the sole finding. His law license was suspended for five years - not by the Court but by the local -State of AK -bar association. In addition the questions asked by the Jones attorneys were not material to that matter as it was a Civil Rights action and not a harrassment suit - and when there is no materiality, there can be no perjury. The Grand Jury asking about what he said in the deposition of the Jones case, and his repeating the same answer about a non-material matter, is still non-material, and so no perjury was ever committed, from a legal point of view. FOR THE MEDIA TYPES THAT LIE AND SAY THAT IS JUST AN OPINION PLEASE NOTE CITE(Cite: Mann & Roberts)

The House impeachment is just an accusation for the Senate to review - and the Jones perjury event - that did not exist - did not make it out as an impeachment charge - losing by a 205-229 vote. And House imoeachment vote on the grand jury impeachment charge for when the questions asked were about what he said in the deposition of the Jones case, he was repeating the same answer about a non-material matter, which is still non-material. Hence, no perjury was ever committed, from a legal point of view (but the House did Impeach but Senate voted no way on that and on the obstruction of Justice accusation that the House sent to the Senate)

As to the law on materiality and perjury use as a Cite: Mann & Roberts.

[calimary]

9. Besides, as those who remember Watergate know, it's not the

crime, it's the coverup.

And whenever that comes up, we should all IMMEDIATELY remind whoever the obfuscator is that lying about an extramarital affair BETWEEN TWO CONSENTING ADULTS is a LOT different than lying about why we had to go to war... and HOW MANY US troop deaths is it now? Um, I think I heard something about "two THOUSAND"? And COUNTING???

[Nay]

5. Well, of course there is. But remember, freepers are not known

for their ability to reason logically. They operate on sound bites, emotional hooks, and the same mentality that makes football fans paint their stomachs orange for the game.

[question everything]

7. And that pretty much sums them

I am glad for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colber(t), they do really present these things as they really are

[LoZoccolo]

8. I've heard two reasons why the Clinton testimony was not perjury.

1. That Clinton was given a very narrow definition of sexual relations in which to provide his answer, and his testimony was technically true within that.
2. That portion of the questioning was immaterial to begin with.

[papau]

10. true - that is why "misleading the court" contempt and a fine were the

result.

[leesa]

12. No. One is about treason.