The Never-ending Plame Matter (was The Libby Trial)

[Jnyusa]

Thanks, tinwë! I get it. The perjury was during a prior sexual harrassment case in which he was the defendent.

[nerdanel]

nel, I'm actually not familiar with the details of the Clinton case, but that he had to give testimony at all still continues to astound me, because:

1. adultery is not against the law

That it would be possible to commit perjury at all with regard to acts committed by oneself is something I really don't understand, because:

2. a witness is not required to incriminate himself

I would be grateful if someone could explain to me what Clinton was doing on the witness stand at all, other than his stupidity in acquiescing to Republican vindictiveness.

Hi Jn --

Clinton was accused of sexual harassment by Paula Jones in a civil action. In his sworn depositions in that case, he lied under oath. That was the first - and in my view, most important - act of perjury, because it had nothing to do with him being hounded by politically maneuvering Republicans, and everything to do with addressing civil charges against him (thus, relating back to what I said about the integrity of the truth-seeking function of the legal system, which includes the civil side of things.) During the Starr investigation, Clinton again perjured himself in front of the grand jury. Starr's investigation is, of course, the part where one might legitimately claim political hardball.

In the interest of full disclosure: the two articles of impeachment that went to the Senate were (1) perjury in front of the grand jury and (2) obstruction of justice in the Jones case. So, the perjury in the Jones case article did not make it past the House. But my point is not really related to the highly political impeachment; I don't necessarily believe he should have been impeached at all. My point is only that his perjury in the civil action was, in my view, serious, because perjury in any sexual harassment case increases the odds that victims of sexual harassment will be unable to receive effective redress from the courts.

Which brings me to another point: to me it is nonsensical to debate overly the "importance" of the subject matter of the lie told by the perjurer. The bottom line is that when any of us raise our right hands and swear to tell the truth, we need to take it damn seriously. I don't care whether the witness is testifying about whether they mowed their lawn on Sunday morning or whether they witnessed murder or whether they were party to an espionage scheme. In my view, the legal system should strongly incentivize truth-telling under oath. No witness should be doing a cost-benefit analysis: "Well, if I tell the truth about this, I face loss of job/public humiliation/loss of friendships or family relationships...but really, this lie isn't TOO important in the grand scheme of things, so I will lie under oath and hope it doesn't come out, or if it does come out, that the judge will figure that it's not too important and slap me on the wrist." Try this cost-benefit analysis on for size: "Well, if I tell the truth about this, I face loss of job/public humiliation/lost of friendships or family relationships...but if I lie and get caught, I'm going to experience all these things plus five to ten years in jail and maybe a fine to boot." THAT'S a different analysis. Let me put it bluntly: for me that would be a different analysis as a witness, if I had a LOT to lose from my testimony.

[anthriel]

I am so grateful that I was able to ask an honest question. You guys ROCK.

Nel, you have said this so much more clearly than I did. Perjury is against the law for a reason. Yes, perhaps Clinton should not have been where he was, and so not given the opportunity to lie. But he was, and he did. Should Paula Jones not have had a chance to bring her complaint to court? Was that a silly thing, a frivolous thing, for her to do, and so a good reason for him to be let off the hook for lying in his deposition?

Again, if it were one of us, we would sure as heck have the cell BETWEEN Paris Hilton and Lil Kim. I don't think writing a $90K check was all that difficult for Clinton to do, and the suspension of a licensure that he was, most probably, not even using, was probably not that big a blow, either.

He got off lightly, yes. Except for the Republican response of the impeachment, which was pretty darned crazy. But he got off lightly because of his political clout, just as Libby did.

This is all politics. In politics, there are no good guys and bad guys, which is what I keep seeing when people say... oh, would the Democrats have done that? Would the "good guys" have worked to impeach a sitting Republican president who had been proved to lie to a grand jury?

You bet your sweet bippy they would have. And that hypothetical president would not have served any jail time, either. This is politics. The rules aren't the same as they are for us commoners.

[Teremia]

He got off lightly.

Well, I don't know about that. He was being hounded about his sexual life because he was a person in a position of great power. Most adulterers never face actual perjury charges.

I was furious with Mr. Clinton at the time for squandering all possibility to do something good for the country and/or the world, and that still ticks me off. I don't understand at all the way the mind must work in someone who can't set aside sex, no matter how absolutely necessary it is to set sex aside for a time.

But then, as I said before, I compare his transgressions with those of Mr. Bush, who actively and by means of deception took a course that has already cost hundreds of thousands of people to lose their lives and has damaged beyond any easy repair America's status in the world and has made my country the object of hate and therefore put into risk the long-term safety of, say, my own children, whose lives will be lived in a century infinitely more dangerous than it had to be -- and the difference in scale between Bush's crimes and Clinton's just flabbergasts me.

Of course, Clinton's immature inability to behave, sexually, may well have been a factor in Bush's coming to power, so the responsibility on Clinton's shoulders is great, too.

[anthriel]

He got off lightly.

Well, I don't know about that. He was being hounded about his sexual life because he was a person in a position of great power. Most adulterers never face actual perjury charges.

True. But he had a sexual harrassment case brought against him, and that's where at least one of his bouts of perjury stems from. Garden variety adultery is different from sexual harrassment. Perhaps Paula Jones only accused him because he was powerful? Or perhaps she was darned brave to accuse him despite his power? Who knows. The whole thing is just so sad.

I was furious with Mr. Clinton at the time for squandering all possibility to do something good for the country and/or the world, and that still ticks me off. I don't understand at all the way the mind must work in someone who can't set aside sex, no matter how absolutely necessary it is to set sex aside for a time.

Set aside sex? He was married, after all. A no sex rule "for a time" would be pretty bleak for ol' Hillary...

But then, as I said before, I compare his transgressions with those of Mr. Bush, who actively and by means of deception took a course that has already cost hundreds of thousands of people to lose their lives and has damaged beyond any easy repair America's status in the world and has made my country the object of hate and therefore put into risk the long-term safety of, say, my own children, whose lives will be lived in a century infinitely more dangerous than it had to be -- and the difference in scale between Bush's crimes and Clinton's just flabbergasts me.

I was just talking about perjury, and people in power "getting away with it". I still think the "getting away with it" part has EVERYTHING to do with power, and nothing to do with the scale of the offense, however it is defined. IMHO.

Of course, Clinton's immature inability to behave, sexually, may well have been a factor in Bush's coming to power, so the responsibility on Clinton's shoulders is great, too.

I hadn't thought about that.

I really liked Clinton. I was REALLY sad to see him do something so incredibly risky, and dumb. But, again, I didn't bring all this up to talk about poor Clinton and his Problems with Girls. I was just trying to talk about his legal burden due to his perjury, and how light that seemed to be... just like Libby, who actually did get some prison time assigned, but will never see it.

Got off lightly (legally) compared to what the punishment would have been for us, anyway. Or do you think we would have been treated the same way (legally, not media-level reaction, since neither you nor I doing such a thing would be interesting enough to be on the six o'clock news ) if we had done the same thing?



Again, I am not trying to cause trouble, here. I'm a little nervous, actually, so I might just shut up, here soon. And that might be a good thing!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Please don't shut up, Anthy. Your contributions here are very valuable.

I do have some what of a different perspective, because of my professional experience. I have seen so many examples of people lying under oath, particularly in sexual harassment cases. That doesn't excuse it (in fact, it infuriates me), but the fact of the matter is that Clinton got called on the carpet for it to a much greater extent than most people do, precisely because he was such a high profile political figure (the highest!). The thing is, the things that he was caught at lying about didn't actually have anything to do with the alleged sexual harassment that he was charged with. The lawyers for Paula Jones were just trying to get some dirt on him. The fact that he had consensual (but adulterous) sexual relations with Monica Lewinski had no real tendency to prove that he sexually harassed Paula Jones. He lied about it not to obstruct justice, but to try to protect his reputation. That's the big difference that I see between his case and Libby's case. The reason why Libby got a jail sentence was because he was convicted of obstructing justice, of interfering with a criminal investigation.

But a good argument can be made that Libby, too, got treated more harshly than most people because he was a high-profile political figure (and a representative of an even higher profile political figure). Perjury and obstruction of justice charges are pretty rare, compared to the number of people who actually lie under oath or to investigators.

That having been said, I think that both Clinton and Libby should have held to a high standard. Particularly Clinton. After all, the man was trusted with the highest office in the land. If we couldn't trust him to tell the truth about one thing, how could we trust him to tell the truth about anything else? (And obviously, I feel the same way about President Bush.)

[tinwë]

I’m still not convinced about Clinton getting off easy because of political power. He got (and served) the punishment that was given to him by the court and the judge in the case. From reading the brief Wikipedia summary I can’t see that there was any political advantage at work there. The judge gave him the sentence she deemed appropriate for the crime*. The same thing happened with Libby except political power was used to commute his sentence.

* I didn’t see the word “perjury” used in connection with the Paula Jones case, just “misleading and evasive testimony”. I don’t know what the distinction is between the two. Ya’ll’d haveta ask one o them there lawyerly types about that. The perjury charge came from the impeachment trial which, I think we all agree, was politically motivated**.

** That doesn’t make it alright for him to lie there either, it just means the trial should have never happened in the first place.

[Faramond]

I'm not interested in Clinton being punished, or if he got off lightly or easily. I agree that what Libby did was worst than Clinton.

I just don't want Clinton's example to lead to a philosophy in which some kinds of perjury are acceptable because they don't meet some threshold of importance.

The point I wanted to get at was expressed by nerdanel:

The bottom line is that when any of us raise our right hands and swear to tell the truth, we need to take it damn seriously. I don't care whether the witness is testifying about whether they mowed their lawn on Sunday morning or whether they witnessed murder or whether they were party to an espionage scheme. In my view, the legal system should strongly incentivize truth-telling under oath. No witness should be doing a cost-benefit analysis

[Cerin]

I apologize for repeating some of what others have said -- I was composing as I read from quite a few posts back.

Why is this pardon more upsetting (just looking at it from a "powerful people get away with everything" point of view) than the Clinton thing? Or was that equally upsetting to you?

Several people have tried to explain why the idea that someone who was entrapped into having to testify about a personal sexual matter and attempted to avoid telling the explicit truth, is less upsetting than the idea of someone lying in the investigation of the outing of a covert CIA operative -- the outing having been maliciously perpetrated as retribution for the agent's husband daring to speak out about the administration's lies concerning Iraq's WMDs -- in an attempt to obstruct the government from finding out who was responsible for such a direct assault on our national security and the people who serve us in such a dangerous and vital capacity. Given that some people find the crime far more upsetting because of its context, severity, and far-reaching results, it seems logical that they would find the commuting of the sentence for the latter crime more upsetting than the fact that the man who lied about a sexual relationship in an investigation of absolutely no consequence, import or purpose but to politically humiliate a sitting President, wasn't required to go to jail. Add to that the fact that the commutation is a slap in the face to every single person in service to this country in the intelligence services. Way to build moral in the front line of the war on terror!

I'm actually not familiar with the details of the Clinton case, but that he had to give testimony at all still continues to astound me, because:


2. a witness is not required to incriminate himself

I would be grateful if someone could explain to me what Clinton was doing on the witness stand at all, other than his stupidity in acquiescing to Republican vindictiveness.

Clinton was on the stand because of the worst Supreme Court decision in history (right after the decision equating speech with money). The information about Monica Lewinsky was uncovered during the hearing surrounding the claims of sexual harrassment by Paula Jones. Clinton asked that that investigation be deferred until he was out of office so as to avoid the disruption to his duties, and the Supreme court sagely decided in a unanimous vote that going ahead with the little hearing wasn't likely to cause much of a ripple on the national radar. They neglected to factor in the fervor of the professional Clinton-haters, who had located, solicited and funded Jones in her lawsuit and shared the same aims as Kenneth Starr.

It was during that hearing (iirc) that investigators surprised Clinton with the information they'd gotten from that other woman who so cleverly and in an act of sincere friendship, taped Monica Lewinskys breathless confessions about sex with the President, without her knowing. I agree with you, Jn, he should have just refused to answer the questions. I don't know what questions about Monica Lewinsky had to do with Paula Jones' claims of many years previous.

Let me put it bluntly: for me that would be a different analysis as a witness, if I had a LOT to lose from my testimony.

No one could possibly have more to lose (i.e., incentive to lie about a non-criminal personal matter, i.e., relations with Monica Lewinsky) than a sitting President. That's why it was such a poor Supreme Court decision (allowing the civil case to go forward while the President was in office). Deferring the hearing would not have harmed Paula Jones, it was already many years since the actions she was bringing suit for had allegedly taken place.

Should Paula Jones not have had a chance to bring her complaint to court? Was that a silly thing, a frivolous thing, for her to do, and so a good reason for him to be let off the hook for lying in his deposition?

Paula Jones should have had a chance to bring her complaint to court after the President was out of office. That would not have harmed her case, but would have removed much of the incentive for Clinton to try and hide the details of his affair with Lewinsky (totally unrelated to the Jones case). Of course, that would not have served nearly as well, the real interests of those funding Ms. Jones' lawsuit.

Would the "good guys" have worked to impeach a sitting Republican president who had been proved to lie to a grand jury?

The Democrats would not have done so, imo. The Democrats would not have instigated the Whitewater investigation in the first place, which after matastasizing into the Kenneth Lay investigation and costing $40 million dollars and countless ruined lives, turned up nothing illegal from Clinton's days as governor. They weren't even investigating something he had supposedly done while in office as President! I vividly recall the contempt and vitriol that were heaped on President Clinton during the impeachment, by many of the same Republicans who now sit quietly back while this President undermines our Constitution and abuses and misuses the powers of his office in extraordinary ways. It is just remarkable. Such outrage over an evasion about oral sex, but not a peep about lies and connivances that have degraded our country and cost untold innocent lives.

Clinton was constantly responding to Congressional subpoenas about things as trivial as his Christmas card list, but the Democrats can't even enforce a subpoena surrounding questions about politicization of the Justice Department and other government agencies, or further an investigation into the misuse of intelligence to sell an illegitimate invasion. So no, I don't think the Democrats would have managed to institute impeachment hearings because a President twisted the truth about a sexual relationship.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The point I wanted to get at was expressed by nerdanel:

The bottom line is that when any of us raise our right hands and swear to tell the truth, we need to take it damn seriously. I don't care whether the witness is testifying about whether they mowed their lawn on Sunday morning or whether they witnessed murder or whether they were party to an espionage scheme. In my view, the legal system should strongly incentivize truth-telling under oath. No witness should be doing a cost-benefit analysis

Yes, I fully, fully agree with this. I hope my previous comments are not interpreted as meaning that I am condoning lying (under oath, or otherwise). I was just pointing out that it happens a tremendous amount, and that most people get away with it.

Whether or not they are politicians.

[anthriel]

I apologize for repeating some of what others have said -- I was composing as I read from quite a few posts back.

Why is this pardon more upsetting (just looking at it from a "powerful people get away with everything" point of view) than the Clinton thing? Or was that equally upsetting to you?

Several people have tried to explain why the idea that someone who was entrapped into having to testify about a personal sexual matter and attempted to avoid telling the explicit truth, is less upsetting than the idea of someone lying in the investigation of the outing of a covert CIA operative -- the outing having been maliciously perpetrated as retribution for the agent's husband daring to speak out about the administration's lies concerning Iraq's WMDs -- in an attempt to obstruct the government from finding out who was responsible for such a direct assault on our national security and the people who serve us in such a dangerous and vital capacity. Given that some people find the crime far more upsetting because of its context, severity, and far-reaching results, it seems logical that they would find the commuting of the sentence for the latter crime more upsetting than the fact that the man who lied about a sexual relationship in an investigation of absolutely no consequence, import or purpose but to politically humiliate a sitting President, wasn't required to go to jail. Add to that the fact that the commutation is a slap in the face to every single person in service to this country in the intelligence services. Way to build moral in the front line of the war on terror!

I read and understood every one of those posts where "several people tried to explain" this concept, Cerin. Please don't imply that I am incapable of understanding them. That makes me angry.

I carefully (and in the part that you quoted) clarified and redefined my question as to why powerful people getting away with such things might be upsetting. tinwë understood my question, and answered it.

[Cerin]

I read and understood every one of those posts where "several people tried to explain" this concept, Cerin. Please don't imply that I am incapable of understanding them. That makes me angry.

I didn't mean to imply that you are incapable of understanding, or had failed to understand the other explanations.

The point I was trying, evidently really clumsily, to make, was that if people are more upset about one crime than another (for which reasons I reiterated, not because I thought you hadn't understood them, but to give some context to my point), then it seemed logical to me that they'd be more upset about the person perpetrating the worse crime having his sentence commuted, than about a lesser penalty for the lesser crime. I was offering that as an answer to the question you asked.

I'm sincerely sorry for giving the impression that I thought you hadn't understood other posters, or were incapable of understanding. It's rather a shock to know you think I would imply such a thing.

And I'm sorry if I misunderstood your question.

[anthriel]

Ah, man.



<thinks>





And I got your point, and the point made by all those folks, btw. Each time I read it. I feel that you are so self-evidently right, though, that I haven't really bothered engaging in that slice of this discussion. I probably should have made that more clear, just to put that topic off the table, so that my (slightly different) question would be easier to identify as... slightly different.

Did I mention ?

[Cerin]

Thanks for understanding, Anthy.

[baby tuckoo]

This isn't within the current flow of the thread, but the following just occured to me.


In early '05 (I think), while Judith Miller was in jail, Libby wrote to her in order to release her from her obligation of silence. He wrote something like "come back to the world." He encouraged her to sing in order to get out of jail.


Had an understanding been made at that point? Had Libby and Cheney foreseen what her song would mean? And did they contract this endgame?


This just occured to me (based on previous readings on the matter) and I haven't researched it, but it falls into a pretty believable place.

[The Watcher]

Just... immoral?

For myself, I don't think I would categorize it as "immoral", Anth. I genuinely believe that President Bush believed that he was doing the right thing, and did so despite the possible negative political consequences. That really reflects my conflicted feelings about President Bush. I disagree strongly with much of what he does, but I don't believe that he has bad intentions. I'm afraid that I can't say that about Vice President Cheny, or Karl Rove, however. I think that Bush has really tried to do the right thing, overall, but that he has gotten very bad advice.

Ultimately, however, the buck does stop with him.

The buck DOES stop with him and NOT Dick Cheney. This whole travesty of an administration just really DOES make me stop and wonder WHO exactly is calling all of the shots in Washington these days. While the Justice Department is taking stances on being hard on sentencing and not tolerating even minor felony crimes, we get this crud.

Fine, Scooter the muppet was only being loyal to his boss(es). He was a fall guy, and I do not care HOW wonderful he is as a person, he screwwed up. Now, only being pardoned, he cannot be forced to testify, and the whole thing is a scam to prevent ANYONE ever getting to the bottom of who really was behind this whole affair. We all KNOW who is (or are) but with the disingenuous posturing that we have seen out of the VP's office and the wildly out of context spin that we have seen Rove, Gonzales, and et all put on what the President can legally and legally NOT do, who is so surprised by this current stance?

Not me. Not at all. If Watergate had occurred back during the elections of 2004, would this administration make the Nixon one pale in comparison? Ask yourself that, and then sleep well with your conclusions.

Opinion polls speak for themselves. GWB is as reviled as was Nixon in the heyday of Watergate. Do any of you even THINK GWB is any longer concerned with popularity polls? I sometimes wonder if he even DOES any thinking for himself. I would bet serious money that his speaking points and most of his political stance come out of other's minds.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Now, only being pardoned, he cannot be forced to testify, and the whole thing is a scam to prevent ANYONE ever getting to the bottom of who really was behind this whole affair.

Libby has not (at least as of yet) been pardoned; he has only had his jail sentence commuted. At this point at least, his conviction is still on the books (although President Bush has not ruled out a full pardon eventually). In any event, neither a pardon nor a commutation would have any effect on the ability of either the courts or Congress to compel his testimony. At least so far as I understand. Of course, he could once again invoke his constitutional right against self-incrimination regarding any other crimes other than the ones that he was already convicted of (though not regarding the crimes he was convicted or acquitted on, since double jeapordy would prevent a new prosecution on those charges), just as anyone else could.

Not that I expect that either the courts or Congress will actually compel any further testimony from him

[The Watcher]

Oh, stupid me, I KNEW he was not pardoned, but had his sentence commuted. My faux pas!! It changes the very gist of my post.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

No problem, Watcher.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Meanwhile, an excerpt from a book by former White House Press Secretary Scott McCellan has been published, indicating that McCellan specifically states that Bush and Cheney were responsible for his misleading the public about the role of Libby and Rove in leaking Plame's identity.

In an excerpt from his forthcoming book, McClellan recounts the 2003 news conference in which he told reporters that aides Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby were "not involved" in the leak involving operative Valerie Plame.

"There was one problem. It was not true," McClellan writes, according to a brief excerpt released Tuesday. "I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest-ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president's chief of staff and the president himself."

No further explanation is given as to exactly what role he alleges President Bush played in the deception. The book is not due out until April. It should be interesting.