This guy would have more credibility if he got his facts straight. The issue with Clinton's perjury and obstruction of justice had nothing to do with "proof" at all. The prosecutors didn't indict him because there's a lot of uncertainty about whether a sitting president can legally be prosecuted while in office.
I believe he’s right about the perjury, Clinton lied in a federal court.
“This guy would have more credibility if he got his facts straight”
Jarret does have his facts straight - read it again.
He’s talking about why they didn’t indict Clinton AFTER he left office.
The piece you replied to referred to "after he left office." I think the reason given, to hard to prove, is bogus. He lied, no question, and it was a material fact in the Jones case. The reason he wasn't charged is prosecutorial discretion. People lie ALL THE TIME in trials, and prosecutions are rare because it just isn't worth the trouble in the grand scheme of things. has nothing to do with being able to prove the charge.
The Libby and Stewart cases are aberrations from the norm.
I don't think Mueller has obstruction on his plate, anyway.
B$ They didn't indict because they didn't want to, any more than the Senate wanted to impeach. In fact the Senate wouldn't even let the House present their case.
The senile old Chief Justice had no clue what his role was in fact the Parliamentarian was the final arbiter on almost everything of importance.