Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: RWR8189

One mistake: Clinton perjured himself to prevent being found guilty in the Paula Jones case.

Starr didn't charge Clinton with Perjury, he sent the records to the House, and let them decide what to do.

After Clinton was caught lying, the judge in his case sanctioned him for the perjury in that case.

Then Clinton settled the lawsuit, paying Jones money but not "admitting" guilt.

So to suggest that Clinton's perjury charge was bereft of underlying charges and was a prosecution without a crime is wrong.


8 posted on 11/04/2005 1:11:45 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: CharlesWayneCT
So to suggest that Clinton's perjury charge was bereft of underlying charges and was a prosecution without a crime is wrong.

And there is another key difference between Starr's investigation of Clinton and Fitz's investigation of Libby - in Clinton's case, the initial perjury and obstruction in the Paula Jones suit WAS the reason for the investigation, whereas Libby's indictment for perjury was a bi-product of the investigation.

12 posted on 11/04/2005 1:18:34 PM PST by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson