Apparently I have to continue to correct the record, over and over and over.

This time it's Vic Rubenfeld:

Frankly, I have to put a lot of blame for this on the Republicans, for using this tactic to impeach Bill Clinton. Having sex isn't a crime, but he was impeached for lying about it.

Well, maybe if you were familiar with what actually happened, you wouldn't have to do that.

Bill Clinton was not impeached for "lying about sex." He was impeached for perjury, subornation of perjury from others, witness intimidation, and obstruction of justice, in the service of preventing a young woman from getting a fair trial in a civil law suit under a law that he signed with his own pen, but thought shouldn't apply to King William. And he did this after having taken an oath to see that the laws of the land were faithfully executed.

Those aren't my opinions. They're black-letter facts. If you people are going to continue to whine about Clinton's impeachment, at least get the history correct. Of course, this kind of spinning nonsense and mischaracterization of the president's behavior was occurring in the media at the time, 24/7, so I guess we shouldn't be surprised that people are still at it.

actually

The house of representatives acting as a grand jury found
sufficient basis to present a bill of impeachment to
the Senate.

The Senate acting as a court of original jurisdiction did
not find those facts and matters of law to be
either true or to rise to the constitutional standard
of high crimes and misdemeanors.

That's the fact.

It's a matter of fact now that a jury of 11 true and
honest citizens did find scooter libby to be
a perjurer, and a judge as a matter of law did
find this perjury and obstruction to rise to the
legal standards.

The appellate courts will now hear if any material
failures of law occurred.

In Clintons case No facts were found or No legal
standard was met.

In Libby's case both were.

And that's the fact Jack

Good way (as usual) to completely miss the point, and give us a non sequitur, Anonymous Moron. You live up to your name again.

Rand, I could be wrong since it's been awhile since I read the book, but I think the entire investigation started because of Juanita Broderick and others claims of being raped (Christopher Hitchens in "No One Left to Lie to" says four claimants although one never went on the record) or at the very least extermely sexually harrassed.

When a sex crime is investigated every detail of someones life is examined be they CEO, pauper or President for impropriaty with others. That investigation was blocked starting the trial that most people became aware of.

It was bigger than a civil law suit.

After the fact, the Washington Post is at least trying to correct the more recent revised history. One suspects the gullible Mr. Oler could read the entire article and still not get the bottom line correct.

BTW
It was bigger than a civil law suit.
Definitely it was, until Clinton got a court to say he couldn't be tried criminally will sitting as President, which thus forced justice to be found via Impeachment. The judicial branch referred the matter to Congress.

I think the entire investigation started because of Juanita Broderick and others claims of being raped

No, the "entire investigation started" as Whitewater. Then, when Paula Jones sued Clinton for sexual harassment when he was governor and she was a state employee, the perjury and witness tampering occurred during discovery for the suit, and Reno handed the issue to Starr, because he was already investigating Clinton.

It had nothing to do with Broaddrick. That came later, after the impeachment saga.

Posted by Leland at March 7, 2007 01:50 PM

A sitting President cannot be tried PERIOD by the courts.

Period.

Starr could not have gotten an indictment by a Grand Jury. If he could have he would have done what occurred with Mr. Nixon and a grand jury.

Mr. Starr got essentially an indictment by a Grand Jury of sorts (the House) on a political vote, he couldnt get a conviction in the Senate by essentially a Petit Jury.

LIbby was indicted by a grand jury and convicted by a petit jury.

One was civil, one was criminal.

Robert

Let's keep in mind that Clinton was also disbarred for this and never contested that action.

Isn't this an odd context in which to get self-righteous about the distinction between perjury/obstruction of justice and lying? Libby's convictions also included one count of obstruction of justice and two counts of perjury (as Rubenfeld mentioned a mere two paragraphs before the part you quoted), so the analogy isn't nearly as strained as your reaction makes it sound.

If you really want to point out a distinction between Clinton and Libby, the biggest difference isn't in the charges, it's in the consequences. I'm sure being impeached and disbarred is annoying, but it's not "years in prison" annoying.

Libby's convictions also included one count of obstruction of justice and two counts of perjury (as Rubenfeld mentioned a mere two paragraphs before the part you quoted)

Libby did not a) suborn perjury from others, b) intimidate witnesses, or c) bribe witnesses. The record shows that Clinton did all three, in addition to his own perjury.

And whether or not Libby actually does jail time remains to be seen. Appeals lie ahead, as well as a potential pardon.

Do the Clinton supporters who think Libby's conviction was just now think Clinton's impeachment was just? What a surprise that they ignore this obvious implication of their "Libby's defenders are hypocrites" argument.

Robert,
Yes, Clinton's perjury occurred during a civil lawsuit, but it was a civil lawsuit because he was a sitting President and couldn't be tried criminally. That's what I wrote earlier.

I'm glad to see you are getting closer to catching a clue.