OT - Bush Commutes Libby's Sentence

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

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.

Clemency after they served about 20 years of their sentence, and after Clinton was lobbied by Jimmy Carter, South African Bishop Desmond Tutu, Coretta Scott King, and New York Archbishop John Cardinal O'Conner, among others, to release them.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by John Galt

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.

As I recall, the deposition was the result of Paula Jones sexual harassment law suit.
Jones was trying to establish a history of Clinton making advances toward his subordinates, thus strengthening her case against him.
How was this improper?

[JW]

My local daily paper, a Gannett paper with a liberal mangement (I have known the lady in charge of the content for a long time.) never ran a story about the commutation. Not the first word. I think this is a much bigger deal inside the beltway and among political activists of both sides than among the voters in general. I think it is much ado about nothing and is a much less important story than many other things going on in the country and the world.

And I'm not defending what Bush did. Despite the fact that Fitzgerald continued the investigation long after he had found the original leaker and had determined not to charge him with a crime, Libby lied under oath and deserves some punishment. Prison? I don't know. Did Clinton deserve to go to prison?

But if Bush and Libby were Democrats, Democrats calling for Bush's head would be defending his actions and Republicans defending his actions would be calling for his head. It would be interesting to research the comments about this made by some of the loudest critics and supporters regarding Clinton's pardons. This is just politics as usual. A plague on both their houses.

[Grammaticus]

Not really, but most people remember Clinton and his actions better than most other presidents. Then in 2 years people may be comparing Clinton's decisions to Bush.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Surtt

As I recall, the deposition was the result of Paula Jones sexual harassment law suit.
Jones was trying to establish a history of Clinton making advances toward his subordinates, thus strengthening her case against him.
How was this improper?

It isn't "improper" in that depositions usually allow a lot. However, evidence of past sexual harassment of Lewinsky would NEVER have been admissible in a civil trial with Jones as the plaintiff. Beyond that, there was no sexual harassment by Clinton toward Lewinsky (consensual sex isn't harassment without quid pro quo threats) under anyone's view of what happened. It is the sort of question that might get asked at a deposition, but it really has no relevance to the future trial. And it is the sort of question that can often cause the lawyer defending the deposition to throw a stink, end the deposition, and submit the issue to a judge.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by John Galt

It isn't "improper" in that depositions usually allow a lot. However, evidence of past sexual harassment of Lewinsky would NEVER have been admissible in a civil trial with Jones as the plaintiff. Beyond that, there was no sexual harassment by Clinton toward Lewinsky (consensual sex isn't harassment without quid pro quo threats) under anyone's view of what happened. It is the sort of question that might get asked at a deposition, but it really has no relevance to the future trial. And it is the sort of question that can often cause the lawyer defending the deposition to throw a stink, end the deposition, and submit the issue to a judge.

I will have to think about that.
I assumed a relationship with Lewinsky would be relevant.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JW

But if Bush and Libby were Democrats, Democrats calling for Bush's head would be defending his actions and Republicans defending his actions would be calling for his head. It would be interesting to research the comments about this made by some of the loudest critics and supporters regarding Clinton's pardons. This is just politics as usual. A plague on both their houses.

There's that phrase you are using again. And again I ask, when was the last time this happened? When has a President pardoned a member of his administration of his obstruction of justice felony stemming from an investigation into his administration? Clinton pardoned someone that didn't pay his taxes. Bush pardoned someone in order to obstruct a criminal investigation into his office. Both were lame, but they're not on the same level.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

There's that phrase you are using again. And again I ask, when was the last time this happened? When has a President pardoned a member of his administration of his obstruction of justice felony stemming from an investigation into his administration? Clinton pardoned someone that didn't pay his taxes. Bush pardoned someone in order to obstruct a criminal investigation into his office. Both were lame, but they're not on the same level.

The larger question is why someone with such a nihilistic view of the political process would bother to follow the issue or waste his time posting about it here...

Challenging people for taking hypocritical positions based on partisan considerations is fair game (indeed, it's important for people to attack that), but to assert that because there are hypocritical people out there neither side can validly criticize the other is absurd. Some things actually are wrong, and, all partisanship aside, deserve criticism. A plague on both their houses is a cop-out and an invitation to dirty, corrupt government.

[JW]

Mr. B, Bush didn't pardon Libby. But he has the absolute power to commute and to pardon if he chooses to.

I refuse to fall in to the childish "What Bush did is worse. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't." argument. A plague on both their parties, to paraphrase Mercutio.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JW

This is just politics as usual. A plague on both their houses.

Sentencing experts said Bush's action appeared to be without recent precedent. They could not recall another case in which someone sentenced to prison had received a presidential commutation without having served any part of that sentence. Presidents have customarily commuted sentences only when someone has served substantial time.

"We can't find any cases, certainly in the last half century, where the president commuted a sentence before it had even started to be served," said Margaret Colgate Love, a former pardon attorney at the Justice Department. "This is really, really unusual."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...la-home-nation

[JW]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

The larger question is why someone with such a nihilistic view of the political process would bother to follow the issue or waste his time posting about it here...

Challenging people for taking hypocritical positions based on partisan considerations is fair game (indeed, it's important for people to attack that), but to assert that because there are hypocritical people out there neither side can validly criticize the other is absurd. Some things actually are wrong, and, all partisanship aside, deserve criticism. A plague on both their houses is a cop-out and an invitation to dirty, corrupt government.

Good points, but I think it is valid to point out in this thread my view that perhaps the commutation of Libby's sentence is not as important as some seem to think it is in the bigger scheme of things. I think that is a valid opinion.

I think at this point many politicians in both parties have decided that partisanship is more important than the country, and power for the sake of power is more important than power for the sake of doing something positive for the country. I think we see that from many members of both parties. And I think this issue is a prime example.

Just as many Republicans were blinded by their hatred of Clinton, I think many Democrats are now blinded by their hatred of Bush. So I'm not jaded on the political process in general as much as I am on the political process right now and for the last few years.

I think it is a good thing to express displeasure with the actions of both political parties, in the hope that perhaps at least one people will actually listen to the American people. That view seems to be the view of the overwhelming majority of people in this country right now based on polls regarding the popularity of Bush and Congress.

[JPhillips]

At the risk of sounding like Buc, I'd suggest you look at 19th century politics. Things today are surprisingly civil in comparison.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by JW

Just as many Republicans were blinded by their hatred of Clinton, I think many Democrats are now blinded by their hatred of Bush.

+1

Incidentally, through a friend I've recently been offered a job interview with Joe Wilson. He's living in Santa Fe (apparently not with his wife), setting up some sort of consulting business.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

At the risk of sounding like Buc, I'd suggest you look at 19th century politics. Things today are surprisingly civil in comparison.

LOL. It's true though. The amount of violence, rancor, vitrol and overt illegalism back them make today's way of politics to be, not only civil, but amazingly bi-partisan in comparison. I love it when people say stuff like "worse ever" or "has it ever been done" when they can only think as far back as 1980. But as Squiddy would say, it probably is comparing apples to oranges.

JW is very correct. To one that has increasingly running further away from the red and blue spectrum, all of this and all what has happened before and all of what will happen looks identical to me. They know that too, it's just the game that has to be played. It cannot and should not be justifiable but you have to consider the times and the context, esp. with the 24-hour media and internet. Unfortunately it will only intensify because we demand information for the sake of filling an immediate void at all times. We cannot stop to think about the context or perspective because the urgency of the immediate forbids that.

[clintl]

The alternate perspective is that just because partisanship and dirty politics aren't worse than they were in 1880 doesn't mean that we shouldn't be dissatisfied because they are worse than they were in 1980.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by clintl

The alternate perspective is that just because partisanship and dirty politics aren't worse than they were in 1880 doesn't mean that we shouldn't be dissatisfied because they are worse than they were in 1980.

Shouldn't be dissatisfied? Of course not. But the point of bringing up historical perspective is that despite how bad politics used to be, we, as a nation, survived.

However, I fully believe that much of the 'agenda' behind today's (and the 1990's) anger was solely to get the opposition party back in power. History (including recent) shows that this will not change. World events, whether being reactive or proactive, does much to affect things in the short term but in the long term, not so much. All one has to do is to look back on the 1970s and think back how much different today is compared to where we should have been.

[JPhillips]

Where I differ from Buc is in my concern over the expansion of executive authority. I really do think this admin has expanded the power of the executive in ways that are unprecedented, from signing statements to the de facto suspension of habeas corpus to the claims of a fourth branch of government.

I believe that history has shown us that expansions of governmental power are extremely difficult to roll back so I want to do something now wile the opportunity still exists. I have no doubt that the next admin whether D or R will largely keep in place the expansions of the executive.

It's not about whether we'll survive, but whether we'll enjoy the same freedoms tomorrow.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Where I differ from Buc is in my concern over the expansion of executive authority. I really do think this admin has expanded the power of the executive in ways that are unprecedented, from signing statements to the de facto suspension of habeas corpus to the claims of a fourth branch of government.

I believe that history has shown us that expansions of governmental power are extremely difficult to roll back so I want to do something now wile the opportunity still exists. I have no doubt that the next admin whether D or R will largely keep in place the expansions of the executive.

It's not about whether we'll survive, but whether we'll enjoy the same freedoms tomorrow.

And that's where we differ - the acts of the current Administration are clearly not "unprecedented". The only thing that has changed is that we are on a global scale (as oppose to national or regional) with every single action being quickly reported and scrutinized to the nth degree.

Throughout our history, the pendelum has swung back and forth from the Executive having all the power to the Legislature having all of the power to where neither had much of any power. Nothing ever remained static and with so much complexity as a diverse nation under multitudes of laws, here is very little that can truly make a difference.

Way back, a single executive order could and did cause very noticeable effects on the citizens (like dissolving the national bank and triggering a widespread economic panic). One could also look at the executive under FDR during the 1930s. Not to mention the power executive (or more pointly, one department within executive) could have in time of war.

I would ask if there is anything (there could be, I'm just asking) that the executive (or legislative) has done that directly affected your life? If you look at such monumental events like 9/11 and the Iraq War, I would say that those did not adversely affect most of us at all. Even the much talked about Patriot Act caused no change in our daily lives. What has changed is the perception that something has drastically changed because we are told that it has but we can't really say exactly what besides war of words and ideas. Clinton was brought up earlier and look at all of the attention his pardons got - as if they really meant anything to any of us.

To me, it's all part of the cycle. Folks like to talk about the extreme nature of something just because they are in the opposition. That truly is the American political system at work for that has not changed since 1800.

[Subby]

i was Totaally on BUSH BANDWAGON UNTIL THIS ROYAL FUCKUP!

MOTHERHUMPSHITSTORMER :[

[PSUColonel]

Some of Bill Clinton's greatest hits:

http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Some of Bill Clinton's greatest hits:

http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm

And some a-hole will be making a similar list a year and a half from now. Will that make you feel special?

[PSUColonel]

no, just pointing out that all President's do this kind of thing. (although Clinton's list is unusually long, and many of the crimes very very serious) This is one instance where the punishment truly didn't fit the crime, and so in this particular case I agree with the President's decision to commute the sentence.

[SFL Cat]

I guess Libby will be Bush's Susan McDougal.

[larrymcg421]

I wonder if there will ever be a thread criticizing Bush where his defenders don't point to Clinton. I mean really, if that's the best you've got then that doesn't say very much for Dubya.

[SFL Cat]

^^^Oh puh-leez. It's the American way...pointing fingers at the opposing party. There is enough hypocrisy and corruption in both parties for everyone to play the blame game.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

^^^Oh puh-leez. It's the American way...pointing fingers at the opposing party. There is enough hypocrisy and corruption in both parties for everyone to play the blame game.

more than enough actually but seriously, I was just attempting to illustrate a point. It's not just Clinton or Bush....but I am saying Clinton made an art form of it.

[JPhillips]

Buc: We'll just have to disagree. This admin has executed a well coordinated power grab that in many ways is unprecedented. The extensive use of signing statements, the new fourth branch argument, the politicization of the DOJ, the de facto suspension of habeas corpus, the assertion that during a time of undeclared war that the executive can't be restrained by either the legislature or courts, etc. are, when taken as a whole, an extreme view of executive authority.

As to whether my life has been affected, that's the wrong question. I shouldn't have to wait until I'm burned to tell others there's a fire.

PSU: I'll ask you, is right now defined as "better than Bill Clinton?"

[PSUColonel]

"better than"? not sure what you're getting at.

[JPhillips]

You seem to be making the argument that what Bush did wasn't wrong because it was better than what Clinton did.

[PSUColonel]

not at all...just stating that this type of thing has always been done, and that this is by far not one of the worst I've seen, in fact in this particular case, a commuted sentence may have even been prudent.

[JPhillips]

This kind of thing has never been done. Find me a case where an admin official has his sentence commuted before he serves a day.

And you're the one who keeps bringing up Clinton. I'm just wondering why.

[PSUColonel]

pardons?

[Buccaneer]

JPhillips, we'll agree to disagree simply because you/we are much closer to going-ons of this admin vs those in our history that no one seems to remember nor care.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

but seriously, I was just attempting to illustrate a point. It's not just Clinton or Bush....but I am saying Clinton made an art form of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...George_W._Bush
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rge_H._W._Bush

Your argument is a red herring. Bush had pardoned 76 people before Libby, and nobody had complained. This situation is different because he is pardoning (technically a commutation, but in effect a pardon) someone in order to obstruct a criminal investigation into his own office, maybe even to cover up a felony he himself committed. That is the difference between this and Mark Rich.

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

This is one instance where the punishment truly didn't fit the crime, and so in this particular case I agree with the President's decision to commute the sentence.

How did the punishment not fit the crime? Is zero days in jail really what you think is fitting for lying to the FBI and a grand jury in a criminal felony investigation, not to mention obstruction of justice?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I would ask if there is anything (there could be, I'm just asking) that the executive (or legislative) has done that directly affected your life? If you look at such monumental events like 9/11 and the Iraq War, I would say that those did not adversely affect most of us at all.

This is the most ironic thing I think I have ever heard said by a self-proclaimed libertarian.

I knew people that died in both the 9/11 attacks and the Iraq War. If there is something more adverse than that, I don't know what it is. They also take and spend a third of my money.

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Even the much talked about Patriot Act caused no change in our daily lives. What has changed is the perception that something has drastically changed because we are told that it has but we can't really say exactly what besides war of words and ideas. Clinton was brought up earlier and look at all of the attention his pardons got - as if they really meant anything to any of us.

This is an argument for authoritarianism. Why protest the Patriot Act even though it probably won't effect my life? Because if you don't stand up for what you want the country to be even if it doesn't effect your personally, then who will stand up with you when they finally come after you?

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Bush obviously isn't a Nazi, but you speak out for the ideals you believe in because if nobody did, any country would become a totalitarian dictatorship.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...George_W._Bush
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rge_H._W._Bush

Your argument is a red herring. Bush had pardoned 76 people before Libby, and nobody had complained. This situation is different because he is pardoning (technically a commutation, but in effect a pardon) someone in order to obstruct a criminal investigation into his own office, maybe even to cover up a felony he himself committed. That is the difference between this and Mark Rich.


How did the punishment not fit the crime? Is zero days in jail really what you think is fitting for lying to the FBI and a grand jury in a criminal felony investigation, not to mention obstruction of justice?

You could make that arument for more than a few Presidential padons throughout history....and what about Clinton himself, wasn't he himself found to have lied to federal investigators?

[PSUColonel]

Here is another example of where a Pardon would be most prudent:



Forget Libby, Pardon Border Patrol Agents, GOP Congressman Says
By Melanie Hunter
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
July 03, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - With the commutation of former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's sentence, a Republican congressman is again calling on President Bush to pardon two border patrol agents convicted of shooting a Mexican drug smuggler.

Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) said in a letter to the president Tuesday that he is "deeply disappointed that U.S. Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean remain unjustly incarcerated for wounding a Mexican drug smuggler who brought 743 pounds of marijuana across our border."

Libby was sentenced to 30 months for obstruction and lying to investigators looking into who leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame to the media. Bush has said he will not rule out eventually pardoning Libby, who must still undergo two years' probation and pay $250,000 in fines.

"While you have spared Mr. Libby from serving even one day of his 'excessive' 30-month prison term, agents Ramos and Compean have already served 167 days of their 11 and 12-year prison sentences," Jones wrote.

"By attempting to apprehend an illegal alien drug smuggler, these agents were enforcing our laws, not breaking them," said Jones, who called on Bush to "listen to the American people and members of Congress who have called upon you to pardon these agents."

"By granting immunity and free health care to an illegal alien drug trafficker and allowing our law enforcement officers to languish in prison -- our government has told its citizens, and the world, that it does not care about protecting our borders or enforcing our laws," he added.

"I urge you to correct a true injustice by immediately pardoning these two law enforcement officers," Jones concluded.

[Buccaneer]

Biggle, once again you cannot see beyond your own nose and misses the point. I am not arguing for any position but simply providing a case for historical perspective and how history goes in cycles.

Your idea of standing up is to wish that this admin would instantly be replaced by Dem on Monday morning. I would still argue that not much would change and we would be left with a group of people wondering why. In time it would but not by any actions from the federal govt.

[Fighter of Foo]

"If it's a choice between the rule of law and one of their best buddies actually going to jail, you know they're going to throw the rule of law out of the window. Remember that these are the same people who wanted to remove Clinton from office because of perjury in a civil suit. But Clinton wasn't one of them, was he?"

Read the quotes in this link and then explain how they don't apply to Libby.

Here's a quote from Republican Presidential candidate Fred Thompson

"Our nation is based upon the proposition that our statutes, common law and the Constitution will not only be applied fairly between litigants, but will also be observed by the government. People will be able to rely upon the rules, usually long established, and their consistent application. This engenders respect for the law. It is a sad irony that a nation that is so dedicated to the rule of law is doing so much to undermine the respect for it."

[Flasch186]

I found it funny when PSU said "so in this particular case I agree with the President's decision" because Im not sure, in my quick glance in my mental history, I'd be able to find a time when PSU didn't agree with the president or his decision X. Isn't it ironic. Doncha think. It's like Rain.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

not at all...just stating that this type of thing has always been done, and that this is by far not one of the worst I've seen, in fact in this particular case, a commuted sentence may have even been prudent.

"I don't believe my role is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own," - George W. Bush on why he signed death warrants for 152 inmates as governor of Texas.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

"If it's a choice between the rule of law and one of their best buddies actually going to jail, you know they're going to throw the rule of law out of the window. Remember that these are the same people who wanted to remove Clinton from office because of perjury in a civil suit. But Clinton wasn't one of them, was he?"

Read the quotes in this link and then explain how they don't apply to Libby.

Here's a quote from Republican Presidential candidate Fred Thompson

"Our nation is based upon the proposition that our statutes, common law and the Constitution will not only be applied fairly between litigants, but will also be observed by the government. People will be able to rely upon the rules, usually long established, and their consistent application. This engenders respect for the law. It is a sad irony that a nation that is so dedicated to the rule of law is doing so much to undermine the respect for it."

and if he's elected President, let's see how many pardons he eventualy grants.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

"I don't believe my role is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own," - George W. Bush on why he signed death warrants for 152 inmates as governor of Texas.

why is this case somehow so different than what most all other Presidents have done over the course of history?

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I found it funny when PSU said "so in this particular case I agree with the President's decision" because Im not sure, in my quick glance in my mental history, I'd be able to find a time when PSU didn't agree with the president or his decision X. Isn't it ironic. Doncha think. It's like Rain.

There is actually quite a lengthy list of things:

1. Illegal immigration policy
2. Fiscal management...Back in 2003, Bush pushed through the largest single increase to the federal entitlement program in decades, with the medicaid prescription drug bill.
3. lack of good planning in Iraq War aftermath
4. terrible protocol for soldiers fighting in aftermath..I.E. "hearts and minds"
5. Allowed the destruction of conservatism...and esentially has now left the GOP in ruins

[cartman]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

why is this case somehow so different than what most all other Presidents have done over the course of history?

There are a couple of reasons that this case is different. One is that a sentence has not been commuted before the defendant has served any jail time, much less before any appeals have been heard. The second reason is that he was a member of the administration, which the jury decided he misled the grand jury as to the activites of the administration regarding Valerie Plame.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

You could make that arument for more than a few Presidential padons throughout history

Which ones? At first your argument was that Presidents made dozens of these.

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

....and what about Clinton himself, wasn't he himself found to have lied to federal investigators?

No, he wasn't. He was acquitted by the Senate and never faced trial. What Clinton did was use legal slippery language, not outright lie to investigators, at least, it has never been proven he outright lied.

Let me ask you again, you said before that the punishment did not fit the crime. Do you think that zero days in jail is an appropriate punishment for two felony convictions of lying to a grand jury and obstruction of justice?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Biggle, once again you cannot see beyond your own nose and misses the point. I am not arguing for any position but simply providing a case for historical perspective and how history goes in cycles.

Your idea of standing up is to wish that this admin would instantly be replaced by Dem on Monday morning. I would still argue that not much would change and we would be left with a group of people wondering why. In time it would but not by any actions from the federal govt.

You don't believe in political apathy, you were just suggesting that you do in this case? If you are giving the historical perspective of political apathy, wouldn't it then be prudent to show where that has gone awry?

You don't believe that the legislature and executive has absolutely no effect on your life, but you said it anyway for historical perspective? Can you indicate somehow for me when you believe what you say and when you don't believe it but are just saying it for some other reason or something?

There is a lot different from when the Dems were in power to now, and stuff that effects me, from taxes to friends being off at war to future taxes to pay off the deficit, to waiting twice as long in line at the airport, etc. But I will agree with you in that since Bush has been in office, there have been few domestic legislative accomplishments beyond homeland security. There isn't much of a reason, historically speaking, to think that with Dems in power there would have been more domestic change.

[John Galt]

I just read that Libby paid his $250,000 fine and word is he paid it out of his personal funds. That doesn't mean someone won't pay him that money under the table, but, if it is true, then it means I was wrong that he would just use his legal fund to pay the fine.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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

Holy hell, I'm agreeing with JPhillips.

This isn't about what Clinton did. Believe me, I'm not a fan of Clinton or his pardons but it doesn't excuse what Bush did. It's a abuse of that power.

It's a cliche, but it's correct in this situation: two wrongs do not make a right.

[JW]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

No, he wasn't. He was acquitted by the Senate and never faced trial. What Clinton did was use legal slippery language, not outright lie to investigators, at least, it has never been proven he outright lied.

That depends of the definition of "lied" of course. Clinton himself said, in accepting the agreement that ended the possibility of prosecution after he left office,

"I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish that goal and that certain of my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false."

Of course in Clintonland, a false statement is probably not a lie.

Here is some good light reading on Clinton and perjury. The Washington Post story, which gives the principal allegations against Clinton and his defense, is a really good read. Remember the "oral sex isn't really sex" defense?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...jury092498.htm

http://media.www.iowastatedaily.com/...-1062308.shtml

BTW, I think the Republicans, much like the Democrats today, were so obsessed by their hatred that it blinded them. The impeachment was idiotic. We've seen nearly 16 years of the politics of hate from both parties now. It does the country no good. The Democrats should have a higher goal than getting Bush, just as the Republicans should have had a higher goal than getting Clinton.