« T.E. Lawrence's "Peace Map." | Main | Fitzgerald News Conference. »

October 28, 2005

Comments

Michael P. O'Connor

So what is the big deal did Clinton not lie under oath, and the Dems defended him, if Clinton did not commit a crime as the Dems have said, then Libby did not commit a crime.

Daniel

I'm not following you, Michael. Maybe I'm giving the impression that Libby's defense is flimsy. I'm not. I'm just saying that perjury is a big deal. It always seems a little slippery, but the charges are important.

Michael P. O'Connor

What I am saying is that in the 90's Clinton committed perjury and the Democrats said it was not big deal and that the people going after Clinton for committing perjury were part of a "vast right wing conspiracy" and that it was an organized attack against the Clintons

Daniel

Well, yeah, and the whole thing was bullshit. As I thought that the charges against Clinton were trumped up, I think that these are rather flimsy, but I try to look at things only on their own merits and don't feel that Clinton is germane here.

Libby lied to a grand jury, or at least it looks lke it. We'll have to see, of course. Bt it's baffling why a guy like Libby looks so stupid right now. Why make up an entire conversation with Russert?

Fitz couldn't prosecute under the IIPA and he couldn't prove that Plame was covert, so he went for perjury and obstruction.

Michael P. O'Connor

Was that not the same charge against Clinton, it based on the deposition of Clinton on January 17 1998. This all came from a lawsuit by Paula Jones (which I will admit was rightly dismissed) but during it he did lie to a jury which is the same as Libby is charged with.

Daniel

Yes, as far as I know, perjury is perjury, But I have to admit that I have little patience with the "well somebody else did something just as bad" defense. Two wrongs, etc.

BTW, what I meant by "bullshit" was the VRWC. Clinton lied and should have gotten the hammer. Instead he was disbarred (was he? or just his license suspended, right?) and impeached. He was impeached because sitting presidents do not get indicted. And he was let off by a Republican Congress, remember.

Michael P. O'Connor

Daniel, I think we do agree, I am not saying that what libby did was right, I was just commenting on how some prominate democrates (mind you I am not saying all, nor will I say most, I am just saying some that are in the public eye) are acting, I am talking about them, as to should have Clinton gotten the full brunt of the hammar, I don't think he should have, maybe a fine like most people would have gotten, but beond that it should be dropped.

Daniel

Fair enough, and I agree.

And for the record, I have a suspicion that this was a hit and Libby is getting the high hat. (That's an allusion to Miller's Crossing, the best mob movie ever).

The comments to this entry are closed.

November 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30            
Blog powered by Typepad