Third try, and pardon me for shouting:
Is perjury/obstruction a legally more serious matter when it happens in a civil vs criminal case?
This, to me, would seem to be one major of the difference between the Clinton and Libby cases: obstructing a civil suit versus a criminal inquiry. Am I off base on this?
They are equivalent legally; I don’t think there’s too much dispute about that. I’m not 100% sold that they’re equivalent morally - to some degree, the morality of a lie is impacted by what the lie is about. (If you’re talking about the morality of different lies, that is, and not the morality of simply lying in court.)
Ultimately, Clinton and Libby both lied to cover their asses, and perhaps Libby also lied to protect Dick Cheney. Maybe the topics they were lying about were not equally serious, but their motivations were the same and I don’t think they’d have necessarily told the truth if they were testifying about different subjects.
As long as you’re basing an argument on a falsehood like that one, the rest will be equally false. I do suspect it makes you feel better to hold on to that article of faith, holding on to a rock in a raging sea as it were, but we’re in the real world here.
Because it ain’t about the perjury, which btw isn’t the only charge against Libby, not at all, although the OP has conveniently ignored them in an attempt to draw yet another false equivalence.
It’s about once again refuting a lame tu quoque attempt from the usual quarters, trying to absolve their own support of these guys with yet another “But Clinton did iti …” The degree to which you have to shut out the outside world in order to maintain that illusion should be illuminating.
If anyone’s holding onto a rock here, it’s those who insist on attempting to justify a crime. Perjury is against the law. If you want “perjury about personal matters” to be legal, then change the law. Otherwise, let go of the rock.
Actually, I see the retort not as “But Clinton did it,” but as “But you looked the other way when Clinton did it.” I think most fair-minded people would just like to see some intellectual consistency from Clinton supporters. With few exceptions, I see no groundswell of support demanding exoneration for Libby because Joe Wilson’s CIA-run attack on the administration’s policies were part of a very clever trap, although that may yet come.
Then I’ll go back to my original statement about context and expand it to say the legal aspects are actually incidental to the reality. Ethicality is a much broader subject than legality, and it is that which we really ought to be discussing. Morality is not derived from or explained by the law, the law is at best an attempt to codify it, partially.
The actions that led to the criminal charges, or not, are the issue. The problem is the constant attempt to compare a blowjob with lying us into a war. To find a scale on which those can be compared is self-defeating before one even starts. It convinces no one, not in our society, not in other societies, not in the eyes of future or even present historians. There could have been no legal actions at all against either man or either administration and the comparative moral judgments would be unaffected - and not to the Bush Administration’s favor, obviously.
Is that today’s talking point? Not that Libby was engaged in an act of personal retribution for having been shown up as wrong about his lies and excuses for a war of aggression, but that this charge is probably just a simple trap of an honest and principled conservative by an overzealous prosecutor? Tell me more about clinging to rocks!
I think the argument is/was that perjury is so bad that committing it disqualifies a person from public office. Until someone on your side of the aisle does it, and then it becomes some perjury is so bad that it disqualifies a person from public office, depending on what the perjury is trying to cover up. Which morphs rather easily into perjury from some people is so bad that it disqualifies them from public office, and those people are nearly always people you hated anyway.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m sure you do, but that’s not the argument i’d make. My argument is this:
-Perjury, legally speaking, is perjury. I’ll stipulate that.
-Not all crimes that receive equal punishment are ethically equal.
-While I support a legal system that punishes criminal acts according to an impartial system, in individual cases I’ll weigh the overall moral offense committed and root for a prosecutor or defendant based on this weighting.
-If Scoot had lied to Fitzgerald about whether he’d driven with an expired license, and this had only come up as an issue because of the Plamegate affair, then I’d not be seeking his blood.
-But the lie he told directly related to the investigation, and furthermore directly related to his official duties, and furthermore was part of a campaign that resulted in a lot of death.
-Therefore, I’ll root for the prosecutor.
Daniel
Clinton was never criminally charged with perjury or obstruction so the equivalency fails right there.
Perjury requires more than lying under oath. The sex question in the PJ case was not material, hence, it was not “perjury,” even if Clinton was overly parsimonious in how he answered the question.
Libby lied abou questions which were directly material to the case that was being investigated.
Libby’s prosecution is legitimate and Clinton’s was not. The Clinton investigation was never anything but a political attempt to find some way, any way at all, to discover or contrive some way to charge Bill Clinton with a crime. When all else failed, Starr, out of sheer desperation, attempted to create a crime by setting a perjury trap. It was the endgame of a long political witch hunt and everybody knows it.
I don’t care what anybody says, a lie is only as important as what is being lied about. I don’t believe it was ever actually showed that Clinton lied in the PJ deposition (I would argue that he technically did not) but even if he did, he was not lying to cover up a crime so it’s trivial. Libby was lying to cover up a national security violation. National security matters to me. Blow jobs do not.
There isn’t the slightest equivalency between these two cases.
True.
Not really. See below.
I don’t know it. Clinton was accused of sexual harrassment by Paula Jones. That’s not a created crime. **Bricker **did a good job of outlining the sequence of events and the details of the perjury in this currently active Pit thread. Start on post 119.
Again, you’ll find your answer in that thread. He lied. No technicality about it.
Clinton was never indicted, but Libby hasn’t been convicted yet. If Libby is found innocent, then we’re back to square one on the “equivalency” issue. But the clear distinction is that Clinton wasn’t indicted. I’d say that’s enough right there.
The sex questions were ruled to be material. I don’t expect to convince you of that, but it is a fact. I’ve briefly discussed my position before
The “perjury” trap? Clinton lied. I didn’t see Starr’s hand up his ass, moving his mouth, and making Clinton lie. Maybe I missed something though.
I’ve noticed that.
Agreed. Libby’s perjury was much more morally wrong. And, were it up to me, I would certainly sentence Libby far worse than Clinton.
It wasn’t a crime of any sort. It was a civil tort, not a criminal charge. Feeding PJ’s lawyers the immaterial question about a consensual relationship with an intern was the “created” part. Starr was tampering with a deposition in order to set a perjury trap.
I disagree. He was only asked if he had touched her naughty parts. The question of whether he had recieved any noggin was crossed out on the questionaire. His answer was technically truthful, and to prove otherwise, you would actually have to prove that Clinton understood that receiving a BJ was supposed to be included in the definition of “sex,” even though it was not present in the text. He didn’t lie. He just didn’t tell the whole truth.
I would agree with you entirely, except courts are not about determining ethics. That’s for another thread.
Well, no they’re not. See above.
And some would say the problem is the constant attempt to use a blowjob as justification for perjury, not to mention the presumption of guilt for crimes not even alleged.
I wouldn’t know… I’m not on the A-List. Maybe you could send me a copy of yours?
For that remark, I apologize. I do not, however, retract the sentiment. There was a comment on another thread about Clinton having really been caught up in “a clever trap” and this was just an inappropriately placed sarcastic reference to that comment.
You, however, are making some very broad and sweeping charges that have yet to be proven. As I have said, I cannot and will not justify any illegal act shown to have been committed by Libby. I suppose I simply have too much respect for my own intellectual honesty and the Rule of Law. I’d like to see more of the same from others, although I understand that’s my personal pie-in-the-sky idealism talking. After what Clinton supporters have gone through since that travesty, I can’t really blame folks for gloating. I’m sure it feels good. I wouldn’t know. I never gloated over Clinton because I was too busy figuring out ways to avoid ever again having to deal with those feelings of shame, embarrassment and disgust.
This is EXACTLY the case, Shodan, and not knowing you personally or bothering to enquire into your personal politics, I’d say it’s irrespective of party affiliation or ideology. It’s human nature at its worst, I suppose, if hypocrisy is part of the fabric.
It seems to me that your having “stipulated” that perjury is perjury is meaningless if you then proceed to make distinctions in order to justify perjury in some instances, those instances coincidently being only those that may have occurred to players on your side of this argument.
I didn’t stipulate that perjury is perjury. I stipulated that, legally speaking, perjury is perjury. I do not believe that, ethically speaking, perjury is perjury. Does that make it clearer?
Daniel
I agree. It’s the acts of lying under oath that are equivalent, if Libby did indeed lie.
Not really, just more slippery. We are, after all, talking legalities here. Would it be easier if we just used the phrase “lied under oath” instead of the word “perjury”, an admittedly loaded term?
Sure. But the OP said:
I was saying that they are equivalent legally, but not morally. I do not see that as my taking a slippery position. I’m not sure what benefit you hope to gain by referring to “lying under oath” instead of “perjury,” but I don’t have any objection to it right now either.
Daniel
So, going back to an earlier post, suppose we have one person convicted of perjury over a matter thant involves stealing a can of peas, and one person convicted of perjury over a matter that involves murder. Both are sentenced to, say, three years in prison.
In each case, the prosecutor pursues the perjury case because he cannot secure a conviction on the original charge.
Are we all happy about that? I know I am not. I would consider three years in prison over a can of pea theft to be a gross miscarriage of justice. I would consider three years in prison over murder to be the same. Perjury is the crime in either case, but the underlying events, the heart of the matter, consists of two very different things.
The legitimacy of the legal system does not derive simply from how stringently it enforces its rules, but on whether or not it redresses wrongs, and on the extent to which that redress is appopriate to the crime, a point lawyers seem to frequently miss.
For the legal system to have any legitimacy at all, it must make a difference whether or not a perjury is made to conceal a blowjob or made to conceal treason. One is a personal matter, the other is a betrayal of the nation.
Therefore, the equivalency is false, to say the least. I would argue that it’s inherently damaging to the respect for law in the US. People notice these things.
I agree. Moreover, I think the counts against Libby are just to get him to flip on Official A. Fitz’ experience with the Hollinger Case back in Illy [wherein he got #2 David Radler to flip] shows he may be cruising for busting bigger boys for bigger crimes than stealing peas, receiving under-table services or even lying.