OT - Bush Commutes Libby's Sentence

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Wish he hadn't done it.Those who were consistent in wishing Clinton get the book thrown at him and that Libby get the same treatment for lying to a grand jury can stand over here in the "you aren't a flaming hypocrite line" Those who chose one or the other, please, go away. Just go away.

Agreed. I don't care if you cheated on your wife or outed a CIA operative, lying under oath is a crime. Now, it would be interesting to see whether Clinton would have done any time - I seriously doubt it, I think the Republicans just wanted him out of office - but that's got nothing to do with this case, since a jail sentence was imposed.

Just ridiculous.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

Let alone lying to a grand jury. He lied in a deposition about sex in a civil lawsuit, not a national security matter involving the criminal investigation of the potential outing of a CIA agent, involving multiple lies and attempts to obstruct justice.

*shakes head*

Ther are/were both attorneys who lied under oath. It doesn't matter what they lied about. Period.

[larrymcg421]

That's a bit silly I think. They certainly both deserve to get punished (and did), but you really don't think it matters if someone lies on the oath about a traffic stop or if they lie on oath to help a murderer go free?

[Ksyrup]

Not in terms of the crime that's been committed. I think it is irrelevant. One may matter more outside of the legal process, but a lie under oath is a lie under oath. Period.

[JPhillips]

Who said this?

"[W]e must always maintain the highest ethical standards. We must always ask ourselves not only what is legal, but what is right. There is no goal of government worth accomplishing if it cannot be accomplished with integrity."

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I don't like it either, but consider that it was pretty much assumed by everybody that he would, in fact, be pardoned. I know that at least once on this forum I predicted that Libby wouldn't be pardoned.

Pardons aren't usually issued until the appeals process has been exhausted. Bush only commuted now because the judge said Libby would have to go to jail while his appeal was pending. There's plenty of time for a pardon if the appeal fails...

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Who said this?

I'll go with Boss Tweed.

[cartman]

I wonder if Bush is also going to commute the sentence of my former boss, who pled guilty to obstruction of justice for making false statements to a grand jury during his time at CA. If Libby's 30 months and $250,000 was excessive, then surely his 7 years and $30 million is off the charts. Not to mention his boss who got 14 years and a $800 million fine.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by George Bush (Sr.)

I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.

Originally Posted by George W. Bush

If there’s a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is . . . If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.

Yep, He sure took care of his friend, didn't he?

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Not in terms of the crime that's been committed. I think it is irrelevant. One may matter more outside of the legal process, but a lie under oath is a lie under oath. Period.

Things are not that black and white. Motivation and circumstances have to be a consideration when deciding on a just punishment. I don't think the lie Clinton told would have merited the same sentence as the lie Libby told.

FWIW, I think if you're going to lay the the blame for Clinton getting off pretty much unscathed, it should be laid at Kenneth Starr's feet. He's the one who made the decision to make a deal rather than prosecute. Not Clinton's allies. And he probably made the deal because he didn't think he could get a conviction. He spent enough time investigating Clinton for every little thing that he possibly could investigate.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Not in terms of the crime that's been committed. I think it is irrelevant. One may matter more outside of the legal process, but a lie under oath is a lie under oath. Period.

Do you really think that in terms of sentencing (not actual guilt)? If so, I think you are in disagreement with every sentencing guideline, state or federal, in the United States.

As for me, I thought Clinton was guilty of perjury and should have received a minor sentence (almost certainly no jail time). I don't think I have ever been involved in a case where at least one person being deposed didn't lie. But the only times I have encountered subsequent criminal sanctions is when the lying was related to a criminal prosecution. So, I can't see Clinton paying more than a fine if he were to be treated similarly.

Whatever the case, I don't see any contradiction in thinking Clinton's actions were not "high crimes and misdemeanors" to justify impeachment and thinking that Bush shouldn't undo a properly applied sentence under guidelines his administration supports because the convict is a political ally.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not too incongruous really, as long as you allow for the application of unusual circumstances to provide an unusual exception.

Seriously NM, I really do see where you're coming from & I do see where it could appear contradictory, but hopefully you'll understand that I don't believe an occasional exception under extraordinary conditions is occasionally called for. This seems like a good time for one of those to apply.

AFAIC, the biggest mistake made was if anyone "outted" her (quotations since she wasn't particularly secret to begin with). If they wanted to send a message to her/those around her, it should have been done with more traditional methods within that community. Considering the other possibilities - such as, just hypothetically of course, brake failure as an example - for anyone to have stood trial for anything remotely connected to this case as it actually played out strikes me as near the height of absurdity. It's within the authority of the President to act in this case, and I'm thankful that he did so in order to avoid such a ridiculous situation.

I see where you're coming from (and appreciate the thoughtful response). However, as the situation involves convictions for perjury and obstruction of justice, it has little to do with punishing him for "outing" a CIA agent and more to do with him choosing to circumvent other laws. It makes sense to me that you would believe it ridiculous for Libby to be punished for an action you don't feel was as severe as it was portrayed (the outing of Plame), but it doesn't make sense to me that you wouldn't likewise support penalties for the crimes he was convicted of that weren't related to the earlier incident. It seems to me that you are picking and choosing when to apply the rule of law is it fits into your philosophy, and I'd argue that such a distinction undermines the foundation of your argument towards an authoritarian political system. Which is how most people settle internal arguments with themselves, I suppose, but I wonder if it means that you've determined never to reevaluate your political philosophy despite striking evidence that there are problems making the pieces fit together. We've got enough dumb people in the world who aren't capable of such dynamic thought -- it makes me despair a bit when a bright guy like yourself seems to willfully choose the illogical path, and one that doesn't get America any closer to being the country it portrays itself to be.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Do you really think that in terms of sentencing (not actual guilt)? If so, I think you are in disagreement with every sentencing guideline, state or federal, in the United States.

No, I think I said in terms of the crime being committed. I didn't say anything about the punishment. If you go back to the comment I was responding to, it was an argument that lying about sex in a deposition isn't as important a crime as lying about the CIA leak. And in terms of the underlying crime, they are equal, IMO. It's lying under oath. For purposes of a conviction, the underlying facts really don't matter.

As far as the sentence is concerned, if Clinton had been convicted, I certainly see a difference in the crimes and how they should be punished. And I suspect Clinton would have been pardoned, anyway.

[Ksyrup]

BTW, my comments really have very little to do with the outcome of this case, and more to do with people trying to make distinctions between shades of lies in terms of guilt.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

No, I think I said in terms of the crime being committed. I didn't say anything about the punishment. If you go back to the comment I was responding to, it was an argument that lying about sex in a deposition isn't as important a crime as lying about the CIA leak.

That's why I asked (instead of presuming).

I agree there is no important difference between the two cases in terms of guilt. Even if the investigation of Clinton had gone far afield and was therefore improper (his relations with Lewinsky certainly had nothing to do with Paula Jones or Whitewater and were not "illegal"), but an improper investigation does not give Clinton the right to lie under oath.

I wonder what sentence Libby would have received if he had pled guilty. My guess is that he would have received no prison time (or 6 months in the worst case scenario). But maybe he always knew he wouldn't actually serve time so he didn't need to cooperate and plead guilty.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by GWB

Originally Posted by George W. Bush
If there’s a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is . . . If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.

In all honesty he told us he would take care of the person, I guess I just didnt interpret it's meaning in the same way W. meant it.

[miami_fan]

On a related note, Barry Bonds and his legal staff is taking a looooong look at this.

[Ksyrup]

TBH, I was somewhat afraid of this possibility - communte the sentence now to spare him jail time, pardon him in 18 months.


"WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush on Tuesday refused to rule out an eventual pardon for former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

"As to the future, I rule nothing in and nothing out," the president said a day after commuting Libby's 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case."

[miked]

The way people are reacting to this is silly. When will people understand that this administration really doesn't care what people think or what the "real world" rules are like. They make their own rules, do what they want, and no matter how much opinoin polls fall or ratings drop, it stays the same. The second he was convicted, you knew he would be pardoned (he still may be anyway).

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

No, I think I said in terms of the crime being committed. I didn't say anything about the punishment. If you go back to the comment I was responding to, it was an argument that lying about sex in a deposition isn't as important a crime as lying about the CIA leak. And in terms of the underlying crime, they are equal, IMO. It's lying under oath. For purposes of a conviction, the underlying facts really don't matter.

As far as the sentence is concerned, if Clinton had been convicted, I certainly see a difference in the crimes and how they should be punished. And I suspect Clinton would have been pardoned, anyway.

Thanks K. You made the points I was trying to make and some people took the wrong way. The crime of "outing a CIA operative" is different than the "lying under oath" part.

Lying under oath should carry the same consequence no matter what you are lying about. There should be just as much anger raised for someone lying about a parking ticket as a murder. Doesn't mean the punishments have to be the same (though I'd be for mandatory jail time for ANYONE who lies under oath, even if it's only 30 days)

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Lying under oath should carry the same consequence no matter what you are lying about...Doesn't mean the punishments have to be the same...

That seems contradictory to me. What consequences should be the same if punishments don't have to be equal?

[Ksyrup]

A conviction?

[larrymcg421]

There should be just as much anger raised for someone lying about a parking ticket as a murder.

This is the most fascinating statement made in this thread. I can tell you I'd be much more angry at say OJ Simpson than some random idiot who lied to get out of a parking ticket.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by cougarfreak

Nothing like giving away a CIA agent, ... then getting a pardon.

By gosh, that's horrible. Now if only someone, anyone, would have been convicted or even charged with that crime.

[Glengoyne]

Oh and to speak to the topic at hand.

This one is a bit hard to swallow.

No question about guilt or innocence on this one. He did it, he should pay the penalty.

As for the sentence. Was it too strict? I have no idea. Honestly, I have no idea.

That is the argument isn't it? Bush is saying that the punishment was too severe. I think the administration should present a better case, if that is their position. They really do seem to have learned nothing.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

This is the most fascinating statement made in this thread. I can tell you I'd be much more angry at say OJ Simpson than some random idiot who lied to get out of a parking ticket.

The act is the same larry. Should we have a seperate law that says "you can't tell a lie under oath unless it's a minor offense that a majority of the population thinks is inconsequential?"

The act of lying under oath is the same no matter what the hell you are lying about. After the conviction, the judge can take into account the other factors. (OK, it's a parking ticket you lied about, 15 days, it's a murder investigation 5 years, whatever. . . )

I don't think anyone who lies under oath deserves a pass. I think it's an incredibly serious offense and should be treated as such. (thus me wanting jail time for anyone convicted of lying under oath)

As I said above, at sentencing we can figure out who gets what punishment levied against them. But there are no free passes and there shouldn't be people saying "ahhh, hell, it's not that big of a deal, he lied about a real estate transaction, it didn't hurt anyone"

YMMV

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not too incongruous really, as long as you allow for the application of unusual circumstances to provide an unusual exception.
... for anyone to have stood trial for anything remotely connected to this case as it actually played out strikes me as near the height of absurdity. It's within the authority of the President to act in this case, and I'm thankful that he did so in order to avoid such a ridiculous situation.

Pardon the editing (I just deleted), but I'm not sure how this can be the case, unless you were bagging on those who impeached Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice stemming from the completely bogus and equally, at least, irrelevant investigation into the Paula Jones "case".

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

As for the sentence. Was it too strict? I have no idea. Honestly, I have no idea.

That is the argument isn't it? Bush is saying that the punishment was too severe. I think the administration should present a better case, if that is their position. They really do seem to have learned nothing.

They really can't argue that it was too harsh. The sentence was well within the Sentencing Guidelines which this administration has repeatedly defended as presumptively reasonable. The recent Rita case which went to the Supreme Court provides a particularly hard comparison for this administration. Rita was guilty of the same crimes as Scooter, received a comparable sentence, had all sorts of positives in his life history (war veteran, etc.), and the administration won the argument that Rita's sentence was "reasonable." Arguing that Scooter's sentence was "unreasonable," but Rita's was "reasonable," is impossible without making bizarre mental gymnastic manuevers.

Even if, for the sake of argument, the administration could argue that Scooter's sentence was too harsh (which Bush attempted to do by citing the probation officer's recommendation), such an argument would support commuting Libby's sentence to a lesser jail term (the probation officer suggested 2 years, I believe) rather than eliminating the prison sentence all together.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Even if, for the sake of argument, the administration could argue that Scooter's sentence was too harsh (which Bush attempted to do by citing the probation officer's recommendation), such an argument would support commuting Libby's sentence to a lesser jail term (the probation officer suggested 2 years, I believe) rather than eliminating the prison sentence all together.

Exactly. "Too harsh" means you support lessening it, or had he served some time, just giving him time served. Commuting it altogether essentially leaves him with just probation and a record...both of which will likely go away in a matter of months.

Anyone know what his home state is? I wonder whether the state Bar will go after his license based on the conviction. Clinton's law license was suspended for 5 years, but that didn't involve a conviction.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by TroyF

The act is the same larry. Should we have a seperate law that says "you can't tell a lie under oath unless it's a minor offense that a majority of the population thinks is inconsequential?"

The act of lying under oath is the same no matter what the hell you are lying about. After the conviction, the judge can take into account the other factors. (OK, it's a parking ticket you lied about, 15 days, it's a murder investigation 5 years, whatever. . . )

I don't think anyone who lies under oath deserves a pass. I think it's an incredibly serious offense and should be treated as such. (thus me wanting jail time for anyone convicted of lying under oath)

As I said above, at sentencing we can figure out who gets what punishment levied against them. But there are no free passes and there shouldn't be people saying "ahhh, hell, it's not that big of a deal, he lied about a real estate transaction, it didn't hurt anyone"

YMMV

I never said any of that. Please reread the portion of your post that I quoted. I never said that the guy lying about his parking ticket shouldn't also get convicted. What I'm talking about is I'm not going to be as mad at him as I'd be at OJ Simpson.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Anyone know what his home state is? I wonder whether the state Bar will go after his license based on the conviction. Clinton's law license was suspended for 5 years, but that didn't involve a conviction.

Based upon what I've read, I think he is admitted to the DC and PA bars (although I think the PA bar might be inactive). I don't think it will matter much - he will lose his license, but I think he will make plenty of money doing non-legal work.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Exactly. "Too harsh" means you support lessening it, or had he served some time, just giving him time served. Commuting it altogether essentially leaves him with just probation and a record...both of which will likely go away in a matter of months.

Anyone know what his home state is? I wonder whether the state Bar will go after his license based on the conviction. Clinton's law license was suspended for 5 years, but that didn't involve a conviction.

And a quarter million dollars in fines.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Based upon what I've read, I think he is admitted to the DC and PA bars (although I think the PA bar might be inactive). I don't think it will matter much - he will lose his license, but I think he will make plenty of money doing non-legal work.

Of course he will. I wonder how long we have to wait until we get to read his "tell nothing" book on all of this.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

And a quarter million dollars in fines.

The fines are kind of a fictional punishment, though. Libby's defense fund raised several million dollars. He will be able to use it to pay the fine in its entirety. From what I understand the fund is use-it-or-lose-it, so it isn't like he could pocket the remainder if he doesn't pay the fine out of the fund.

There is also the possibility that Bush may issue a full pardon at a later date and if the appeals are still going on, Libby would never have to pay the fine even from his fund.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by John Galt

The fines are kind of a fictional punishment, though. Libby's defense fund raised several million dollars. He will be able to use it to pay the fine in its entirety. From what I understand the fund is use-it-or-lose-it, so it isn't like he could pocket the remainder if he doesn't pay the fine out of the fund.

There is also the possibility that Bush may issue a full pardon at a later date and if the appeals are still going on, Libby would never have to pay the fine even from his fund.

How much of that fund is going to exist after his defense team submits their billable hours claim, though?

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I never said any of that. Please reread the portion of your post that I quoted. I never said that the guy lying about his parking ticket shouldn't also get convicted. What I'm talking about is I'm not going to be as mad at him as I'd be at OJ Simpson.

And I would be. A lie under oath is a lie under oath.

My anger at OJ or any other murderer is 100% seperate from the fact some guy lies under oath. The anger is much more severe and I'd hope that's obvious. On most of the things dealing with murder, the lie is going to get you far more than a perjury charge.

The actual lie under oath is disgusting in itself. I don't need to know WHY the lie was made or WHAT it was about.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

How much of that fund is going to exist after his defense team submits their billable hours claim, though?

Although I'm sure the bills will be high, it is pretty hard to deplete a $4 million plus budget. I've worked on matters with bills that high, but those are extremely document intensive (tens of millions of documents) with tons of international travel and dozens of lawyers working on the case. For a matter of this size, $4 million is hard to spend. If he somehow did, I'm sure they would do another round of fundraising to cover the difference. For someone with Scooter's connections, I can't imagine he will pay a dime.

edit: And I imagine he is being billed on a monthly basis, so I would expect they would be well aware of the costs as the process goes along.

edit again: I take back what I said. If he went full bore in trial prep, hired high-paid jury consultants, ran several mock trials, and overstaffed everything, he might have depleted the fund. But if he did so and couldn't cover his fine, that his partly his own fault. And I still think he will fundraise again if he needs the cash (which I don't think he has had to do yet).

[larrymcg421]

And I would be. A lie under oath is a lie under oath.

My anger at OJ or any other murderer is 100% seperate from the fact some guy lies under oath. The anger is much more severe and I'd hope that's obvious. On most of the things dealing with murder, the lie is going to get you far more than a perjury charge.

The actual lie under oath is disgusting in itself. I don't need to know WHY the lie was made or WHAT it was about.

Except one lie puts a family through a tremendous amount of extra trauma (having to go through a circus of a trial, etc.) that is separate from the trauma they've already experienced with the loss of a loved one. The lie causes extra damage on top of what has already been done with the murder. It's much much worse than the guy lying about a traffic ticket.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by TroyF

And I would be. A lie under oath is a lie under oath.

My anger at OJ or any other murderer is 100% seperate from the fact some guy lies under oath. The anger is much more severe and I'd hope that's obvious. On most of the things dealing with murder, the lie is going to get you far more than a perjury charge.

The actual lie under oath is disgusting in itself. I don't need to know WHY the lie was made or WHAT it was about.

You seem to believe in one of Kohlberg's lower moral stages of reasoning. Is a man that steals bread so his family doesn't starve to death as disgusting as a man that steals bread so that other families are forced to buy his bread at higher prices? To you it would be the same disgusting crime, but I think circumstances have an effect on the severity of a crime.

[Flasch186]

at least Glen was able to pull back the blinds.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

TBH, I was somewhat afraid of this possibility - communte the sentence now to spare him jail time, pardon him in 18 months.


"WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush on Tuesday refused to rule out an eventual pardon for former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

"As to the future, I rule nothing in and nothing out," the president said a day after commuting Libby's 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case."

I don't think it matters what happens on appeal. By commuting the sentence, it is the worst that can be served, right? If he wins on appeal, he is off the hook. If he loses, the sentence is still commuted.

Originally Posted by miked

The way people are reacting to this is silly. When will people understand that this administration really doesn't care what people think or what the "real world" rules are like. They make their own rules, do what they want, and no matter how much opinoin polls fall or ratings drop, it stays the same. The second he was convicted, you knew he would be pardoned (he still may be anyway).

Actually, they are playing by the rules. The executive branch has the authority to grant pardons and commute sentences. We have the right to vote them and their party out of office if we don't like what they do.

In my opinion the real "not playing by the rules" is the Judicial branch. The checks and balances on that branch is weak. They can legislate from the bench, but it takes a lot to remove a bad judge. Basically it does not happen.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

I don't think it matters what happens on appeal. By commuting the sentence, it is the worst that can be served, right? If he wins on appeal, he is off the hook. If he loses, the sentence is still commuted.

There were three parts of the sentencing, I think: 30 months in jail, two years probation, and $250k. Bush took away the jail time. So he can still win some cash and not have to be on probation if he wins his appeal. Plus, it allows Bush to keep giving the 'we can't comment on an ongoing investigation' bullshit excuse, and keeps it so that Libby can invoke the fifth if he appears before Congress.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

There were three parts of the sentencing, I think: 30 months in jail, two years probation, and $250k. Bush took away the jail time. So he can still win some cash and not have to be on probation if he wins his appeal. Plus, it allows Bush to keep giving the 'we can't comment on an ongoing investigation' bullshit excuse, and keeps it so that Libby can invoke the fifth if he appears before Congress.

And he can say that he did not pardon him. Actually not a bad approach to take in the world of politics. Depending upon your goal.

Why didn't Clinton just do that with Marc Rich? It sure would have looked a lot better.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glen Greenwald

The Plame investigation was urged by the Bush CIA and commenced by the Bush DOJ, Libby's conviction pursued by a Bush-appointed federal prosecutor, his jail sentence imposed by a Bush-appointed "tough-on-crime" federal judge, all pursuant to harsh and merciless criminal laws urged on by the "tough-on-crime/no-mercy" GOP. Lewis Libby was sent to prison by the system constructed and desired by the very Republican movement protesting his plight.

What gets me the most is that Bush had a rep in Texas for hardly ever granting or even seriously considering clemency for death row inmates. It's not even that I am surprised it happened, it's so disgusting and yet I knew it would happen.

[watravaler]

Take care of your friends, and they will take care of you.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

You seem to believe in one of Kohlberg's lower moral stages of reasoning. Is a man that steals bread so his family doesn't starve to death as disgusting as a man that steals bread so that other families are forced to buy his bread at higher prices? To you it would be the same disgusting crime, but I think circumstances have an effect on the severity of a crime.

Does the guy who stole the bread get a free pass in your book? Is he simply free to go?

People use all sorts of reasoning when they commit a crime. The LAW was broken. There is time in sentencing for compassion or hatred over the act. Yes, the guy who stole the bread should get a lighter sentence than the guy who swiped a pack of cigs. The man who shoplifts a $200 dress for his wife should get a tougher sentence than a 12 year old kid stealing a candy bar.

None of the rationalization matters at the time of the crime. Either the law was broken or it wasn't broken. And if you did break the law, you should suffer some form of punishment for that.

I think Clinton's punishment should have been MUCH more severe than it was. That's taking the circumstances into account. He was a sitting president and lied under oath. It's sickening to me.

In the case of Libby, they did dole out the punishment and that scumbag Bush let him off the hook. Reading all of what happened, I'm not convinced Libby really deserved 2 years, but he damned well deserved jail time and there is no way in hell he deserved a pardon. I don't think Bush is the evil dictator a lot of people make him out to be, but this is just pathetic and sickening to me.

You guys are trying to pigeonhole me into something I'm not. I UNDERSTAND there are circumstances that need to be looked at in a criminal act. I UNDERSTAND that what OJ did is worse than what Clinton did. But I also UNDERSTAND where the time for compassion and understading are.

Do I take a harder line than most in the disgust I have for people who break the law? Yeah, I do. I do bigtime. While OJ put more people in pain, I don't think there was a lot of difference in the reason him and Clinton acted the way they did. Neither did it because they were stealing bread for their poor families. They did it out of selfishness. (FWIW, I'm not sure if OJ ever lied under oath. I know he never testified and I believe the only time he spoke to police was at the beginning, with no under oath statement given. He could have been charged with lying to the police, but they'd have had to have gotten a conviction for that, and if they'd gotten a conviction they wouldn't have needed to bother with the lying charge. OK, I'm just rambling now)

[clintl]

With respect to OJ, you're forgetting the civil trial. He did testify under oath then.

Back to a point John Galt made, though:

I don't think I have ever been involved in a case where at least one person being deposed didn't lie. But the only times I have encountered subsequent criminal sanctions is when the lying was related to a criminal prosecution.

I've been a juror three times in civil cases, and I'm pretty sure someone lied on the stand in every one of them. And the question becomes one of practicality - does it really serve the purposes of justice to tie up prosecutors' time with pursuing perjury cases related to civil trials? Because if they pursued them, they wouldn't have time to do anything else.

That's the difference between the Libby and Clinton cases. The Clinton case involved lying in a deposition related to a civil case, and considering that he had his law license suspended over it, actually paid a heavier price than most would have in his circumstances. Most people who do exactly the same thing don't have a special prosecutor devoting 100% of his time to investigating every little thing they've done.

Now, from what I've been reading, the sentence Libby got was right in line with what anyone else would have received for perjury and obstruction of justice during a criminal investigation.

I'm not saying that this excuses what Clinton did in any way. However, to suggest that Clinton got off easy compared what a normal person would have faced is just as ridiculous as saying Paris Hilton got off easy when the LA sheriff let her out early, when in fact, most people who did exactly what Paris Hilton did would not have received a jail sentence at all.

[Grammaticus]

I think you all have Clinton's role swapped in this debate. Your comparing Clinton's lies to Libby's. Try comparing Clinton's pardons to Bush's.

Clinton pardoned 16 FALN terrorist in 1999. These guys were real scumbags that set off over 120 bombs in the US. The FALN terrorists are responsible for 6 deaths and the permanent maiming of dozens of others, including law enforcement officials.

Bush did not even pardon Libby. If he eventually does, it will still never equal the FALN pardons.

Edit - I'm not sure if Clinton pardoned or commuted the FALN sentences, so someone who knows more about that may know for sure. Either way, it is probably one of the most controversial uses of that particular executive power.

[larrymcg421]

I don't have anything swapped. I've said before and will say again, I would be totally happy if both Bush and Clinton spent the rest of their lives in the nastiest prison on the planet.

I only took exception to Troy's statement that we should be just as angry at the guy lying about a traffic ticket as we should about OJ (or any other murderer or rapist or pedophile, etc.) lying about what they did. Yes, both should receive punishment, but it seems excessively silly to argue that we should not be more angry at the latter.

[JPhillips]

Who fucking cares who Clinton pardoned? Is the new standard of right and wrong a comparison against Clinton?