No it wasn't. The basis for the Jones lawsuit was that Clinton came on to her.
And as her boss constituted sexual harrassment, as he didn't simply ask her, he used his position. One of her accusations in the suit was that he rewarded those who had sex with him - thus putting her at an employment disadvantage. If true, that hits violations of the law in several different ways.
She wanted to use Lewinsky as evidence to establish "pattern" in the civil case. IIRC, Clinton wasn't charged either, although there were penalties.
He wasn't charged, because it was a civil lawsuit, with civil penalties for the behavior.
By the way, the law that established that ability to establish a pattern in that way was the Violence Against Women Act, which ironically Clinton championed those very clauses.
The general point is a simple one - the law asks for participants to give truthful testimony, or none at all if you are the target of the case. And lying to investigators carries a risk of criminal prosecution.
The point with Libby, is that there appears to not to have been an investigated case - Fitzgeralds office appears to have jumped right past that - and that the other examples you cite have investigated cases as components. Without further explanation, it appears that Fitzgerald didn't look to see if there was even a potential of a crime. Also, Libby was NOT identified as a target of the case, which is also important - but in other ways.
He wasn't charged, because it was a civil lawsuit, with civil penalties for the behavior.
Perjury and false statements in a civil case are criminal conduct. Starr didn't pursue the charge out of deference to the office. THe Senate figured the conduct didn't rise to a level that warranted removing him from Office. But the underlying case where his criminal lying behavior happened was a civil case. Understandable behavior too, since the truth hurt both his chances in the case, and his public reputation. LOL.
The point with Libby, is that there appears to not to have been an investigated case ...
Miller raised this point, albeit too late, in order to avoid giving testimony. She went to jail over it.
Without further explanation, it appears that Fitzgerald didn't look to see if there was even a potential of a crime.
Either that or he trusted the word of the CIA.
Also, Libby was NOT identified as a target of the case ...
I don't know about being identified as one, but my read of the recently unredacted portions of Tatel's opinion in the "Miller Must Testify" case indicates that Fitzgerald considered Libby as a possible leaker in violation of the pertinent statute.
What's more, if Libby mentioned Plame's covert status in either [page 34] conversation, charges under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, 50 U.S.C. § 421, currently off the table for lack of evidence (see 8/27/04 Aff. at 28 & n.15), might become viable. Thus, because Miller may provide key corroboration or contradiction of Libby's claims -- evidence obviously available from no other source -- the special counsel has made a compelling showing that the subpoenas directed at Miller are vital to an accurate assessment of Libby's conduct.