" There was a crime, or the real possibility of a crime. Clinton in effect admitted to his guilt by settling.
No crime. It was a civil case, and the case was dropped by the plaintiff. Given thatteh case was dropped, a finding of liability became impossible."
You are either being sophistic or you really don't understand the law.
Clinton was under oath in a legal proceeding before a judge. It doesn't matter if it is civil or not.
And the case was not dropped--it was settled, with Clinton paying large damages.
Sheesh.
Both are probably true, in your mind.
Clinton was under oath in a legal proceeding before a judge. It doesn't matter if it is civil or not.
But your test of materiality was whether or not the defendant could be convicted - i.e., no crime, no way for there to be materiality. In the Clinton case, the cash settlement was a condition that Jones imposed for her to drop the case. She dropped the case, and promised not to sue on the same cause of action.
Libby was under oath, and was being questioned by federal investigators. You are excusing lying in that context, on the condition that the investigation cannot result in a charge of the underlying crime. Even DiGenova disagrees with you on that point.