One more time, Libby was the only one to be caught lying under oath.  He
made a claim about his source of information, that's what killed him.
Frankly he was a fool to talk to the FBI or the grand jury absent a grant
of immunity, then he would have had to squeal like a stuck pig or go to
prison.

Heaven forbid that he didn't have anything to "squeal" about.

As for the bias of the jury, it's telling that Libby and his lawyers
didn't
believe the jury was biased when selected.  It's also telling for your
bias
claim that several of the jury members wish that dumbya would issue a
pardon.  It appears the jury took the law and crimes seriously despite
have
sympathy for Libby.

I really don't care if Libby was found guilty or goes to prison - in my
mind that is probably just karmic justice for the whole Marc Rich deal.
My bias is that the jury be fair.  I don't care if Libby and his lawyers
thought they had a good jury.  They were about as unbiased as the OJ jury.
Statments made by jury members directly after the trial ended showed they
had an agenda and the reporter (ex-reporter, or whatever) should never
have been allowed on the jury.  It could also be that "several of the jury
members" are feeling guilty now and a pardon is the only way to lighten
the load on their collective conscience.

"Art Clemons" <artclemons@aolSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:suGdndXxiO1yyG7YnZ2dnUVZ_qjinZ2d@comcast.com...

John Smith ® wrote:

Yes, I do know that he was never criminally charged with perjury. It was
long row to ***** to prove perjury. He answered the question literally,
his answer was misleading and as someone who practiced law, he is not
supposed to provide intentionally misleading answers. That however does
not meet the legal standard for perjury. If you don't include
oral-genital contact in your definition of sex, then nobody receiving
fellatio has had sex according to your definition.

If you had this inside information about charges, why not just say it -
or
were you just being Clintonesque?
I guess if you don't include shooting someone with a gun until they die
in
your definition of murder.....well you get my drift.

What inside information is required. There is no public record of a
criminal indictment of William Jefferson Clinton, therefore I know there
was no indictment. Starr left office without charging Clinton or seeking
charges before a grand jury. Since such charges were within his purview,
one has to conclude that despite his nonsense with the House of
Representatives that he was blowing legal smoke.

When I used the "search of public records" to show something in another
thread one of your lefty buddies stated that was not good enough, I needed a
cite. When I gave him a web site, he said that was not good enough because
the site didn't have a cite. LOL I just thought maybe you had some inside
contact that said nothing was ever done in the Jones case (the one where
they did the plea agreement).

Look up the definition of perjury in the State of Arkansas. Then look up
the federal definition of the crime of perjury. Now, note what I stated
about what Clinton did. Once again, answering a question truthfully if
deceitfully does not qualify as perjury under any legal definition I can
find. It's that simple. Why not ask Starr why he didn't seek criminal
prosecution of perjury? I know why, and if he's honest, he'll admit that
he could not prove perjury, neither could the lawyers for Paula Jones.

Then why, in the Jones case, did he settle and agree to give up his law
license for several years?

When I used the "search of public records" to show something in another
thread one of your lefty buddies stated that was not good enough, I needed
a cite.  When I gave him a web site, he said that was not good enough
because the site didn't have a cite.  LOL   I just thought maybe you had
some inside contact that said nothing was ever done in the Jones case (the
one where they did the plea agreement).

Look up the definition of perjury in the State of Arkansas.  Then look up
the federal definition of the crime of perjury.  Now, note what I stated
about what Clinton did.  Once again, answering a question truthfully if
deceitfully does not qualify as perjury under any legal definition I can
find.  It's that simple.  Why not ask Starr why he didn't seek criminal
prosecution of perjury?  I know why, and if he's honest, he'll admit that
he could not prove perjury, neither could the lawyers for Paula Jones.

Then why, in the Jones case, did he settle and agree to give up his law
license for several years?

You seem to have forgotten that impeachment, and removal from office
are
2
different things. I never said he was removed from office. I said he
was
found guilty by the House and impeached.

The House doesn't conduct a trial, it conducts the equivalent of a
grand jury proceeding. Grand juries don't convict or make findings of
guilt. No
I haven't forgotten what the difference is between impeachment and
trial in
the Senate. I'm quite clear on the difference and the consequences of
both.

I have appeared as a witness before many grand juries, I know how they
work, but that does give me a better image of what the House side
actually
does in impeachment cases. Thanks.

It appears there isn't much of a consequence for impeachment any more.

There never was a consequence for impeachment, there is is only a
consequence for the Senate at trial finding the accused subject to
removal from office, that's the only consequence for a trial in the
Senate but it's
a major consequence for an office holder.  Impeachment however is a
necessary prerequisite for trial in the Senate and frankly it should not
have happened in the 90's as the Senate results proved.

With the Senate almost always 50:50 I can't see the removal from office
unless that changes.
It appears that the "Special Prosecutor Boogie" has become part of the
presidency now.  I expect to see one with every change of CIC.