What is David Brooks talking about?

What was Bill Clinton’s lie under oath? Specifically. Somebody remind me.

It’s odd, but I suspect that the unspoken Armitage link-up is that they don’t consider Armitage to be one of them because he wasn’t a team player. So that means that he’s on our team. And if he’s on our team, then we’ve just undermined our own case because we’re attacking a guy for doing what one of our team members did first. And the obviousness of this is just so obvious that they don’t even bother explaining it, and find that simply citing Armitage’s name is enough for people to connect the dots. And for them, it is. And they never explain it because it’s so entirely absurd that they could never do it.

I think it was a deposition under oath and he was ask “Is Monica Lewinsky your girl friend?” answer “no”

then later under questioning from Star he came up with the memorable line

It depends on what the meaning of is is.

that’s my recollection.

I think it was a deposition under oath and he was ask “Is Monica Lewinsky your girl friend?” answer “no”

That’s it? “No, she’s not my girlfriend?!!!!” THAT”S REDICULOUS!!!

Anybody else got another answer to what Bill Clinton’s supposed “lie under oath” was?

There were THREE leakers, Rove, Armitage, and Libby. This is in Fitzgerald’s trial memorandum which can be found in various linkages in the Volokh Conspiracy.

Armitage confessed that he leaked it and said that he didn’t know Plame was covert and didn’t intend to leak it, and this was right before Fitzgerald was special prosecutor. So, Fitzgerald know the identity of one leaker, and proceeded to investigate the source of all the multiple leaks which led to Rove and Libby. Armitage’s voluntary confession saved him from any liability — since under the Intelligence Act, you have to leak the covert information with intent. Contrast this with Libby’s brazen deception with Fitzgerald, FBI agents and other attorneys.

As a result, I think the district court and the appeals court found appropriately that Libby was subject to perjury and obstruction of justice. There is also the fact that Libby’s lies conveniently threw the sand in the wheels of justice as to whether Cheney intentionally leaked the information about Plame’s covert status which would theoretically bring the VP under the jurisdiction of the Intelligence Act (but then again, Cheney and Bush could always claim that Cheney retroactively declassified that information under presidential authority when he chose to leak that information so it wouldn’t be covered under the IIPA).

I think the real truth is that both Bush and Cheney chose to declassify information for political ends. That is what they’re trying to cover up and that is sufficient alone for impeachment purposes, but of course, does the national media or Congress have any brain cells to exercise on this? No.

I don’t know the story about Rove, but he managed to skate away, apparently, by telling the grand jury something. Again, contrast Rove’s “apparent” cooperation with Libby’s lies.

For all of those sophomoric apologists like syndicated Brooks or neil on this thread, stop the fucking nonargument “Clinton did it too!” What is done is done. The events manifested the way they did, and that’s it. Now let’s talk about the here and now – Mr. Bush and his WH crew have wrecked havoc upon our nation whether the mentioned above are savvy enough or not to notice. For Brooks, his foible is his vested interest in the Republican party. Anything coming from his mouth or pen has been filtered through such a partisan lens. As for Neil, I don’t know his story, but Neil, are you expecting such above the law treatment when or if you are involved in a judiciary process? Do you condone what President Bush did? If so what is your understanding of the rule of law as opposed to rule by the guy you like? Come on people, this administration has damaged our bodypolitik for generations to come. -Kevo

Re: Haik Bedrosian: I always thought that Clinton was under oath. He said he “didn’t have sexual relations with that woman” when the truth was he had.

Secondly…to Neil Wilson…a correction in your post:

People who are defending Libby are crazy. He lied to a grand jury, was convicted, and should go to jail.

For all of those sophomoric apologists like syndicated Brooks or neil on this thread, stop the fucking nonargument “Clinton did it too!” What is done is done.
I don’t understand how you reach the conclusion that Brooks and I agree on anything concerning Libby.

OK, I lied. I do understand how you reached your conclusion that I am using the same argument that Brooks used. You have a preconcieved notion of what is right and you won’t bother to let facts get in the way.

Calm down a little and think about things before sticking your foot in your mouth. You will never be able to stick your foot in your mouth anywhere near as well as Tony Snow so why bother to try.

Of course it was wrong for Clinton to lie. Of course it was wrong for Clinton to have extramarital sex. Most Democrats said that at the time. The issue was whether these were impeachable offenses … and whether the Whitewater investigation should extend to the private sex life of the President.

Clinton was unethical in his private behavior. Libby behaved illegally in matters related to national security — indeed about a key justification for war. Can an issue get any more significant? Could there be a greater disparity in import between the Clinton and Libby affairs?

Yet note this: Republicans cannot even bring themselves to admit that Rove/Libby/Armitage were wrong to reveal the identify of a covert agent.

This horse may be dead and gone, but I have my $0.02 to add about the “Clinton Lied Too” argument.

Technically, Clinton was never convicted of lying. Acquittal in the impeachment process was not a verdict on whether he lied or not, the acquittal was for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Ken Starr probably would have prosecuted Clinton after he left office for perjury before a grand jury, and probably would have won. But Clinton came to an agreement before he left office which precluded any such trial.

But whether Clinton was “convicted” of lying misses the point. The point, I think, is this:

At the time of the impeachment, the Republicans were howling “Rule of Law! Perjury! Rule of Law! Perjury! Rule of Law” until they were blue in the face. The tactic of the Wingnuts and the Starr folks was to trap the president into a demonstrable lie, any lie, anything possible they could use to charge him with perjury and thereby run him out of office.

To succeed, they had to build up “perjury”, not matter about what, no matter the significance of the lie, into a capital offense. I remember the House Judiciary Committee devoted an entire hearing to the subject of the evil consequences of lying, even about sex. So it didn’t matter that the lie was about consensual sex between adults (no matter how reprehensible that may be from a personal standpoint), what matter was the lie itself.

Now, the wingtip is on the other foot. Scooter Libby was convicted of lying to Federal officials. If he were a democrat in 1998, special counsels would have been appointed, hearing called, an thunderous denunciation from the WSJ editorial pages would call for his scalp. Instead, the Republican apologists point to “No underlying crime here,” “he was railroaded by a vicious prosecutor,” “his lie was was just a technicality.”

If perjury was a crime in 1998, it’s a crime seven years later. Otherwise, the hypocrisy is breathtaking.

David Brooks: “…President Bush entered the stage like a character from another world, a world in which things make sense…”

OK, that is the STUPIDEST thing I have ever read Brooksie write, and he has written some painfully stupid shit over the years.

The man who doesn’t read, who asks no questions at important meetings, who keeps himself cocooned in a bubble, the man who beats himself on the chest yelling “I am the president”, that’s the guy who’s from a planet where things make sense.

Unbelievable.

BTW, I wish Mark Shields could be replaced by Paul Krugman just once on the Friday News Hour. Brooks would be dead meat if he ever had to face a real progressive that wasn’t a professional punch puller.

tillman fan,

The past 15 years of Clinton and Bush presidencies have shown clearly that there is no real difference between the two main parties.

try selling that to Pat Tillman’s family, and the families of all the other service men and women maimed and killed in the middle east. There’s a real difference in the parties.

neil wilson,

Clinton lied and that was wrong. Liddy lied, was convicted for lying and the hypocrites on the right feel that they are above the law. Get it?

Brooks should be asked who’s the most absurd character in the entire drama.
Of course, modesty may prevent him from answering.

Kevo wrote

No Neil, my preconceived notion is to get to the facts and hold anyone accountable for the treasonous act of outing a CIA asset during the time of war, and then trying to get us to believe that Valerie Plame was “fair game.” Repulsive is the term that describes this WH chicanery. Let justice run its course and let the chips fall as they may is my only preconceived notion, and with the commutation of Libby’s sentence, this WH has just obstructed such a pursuit of justice. -Kevo

Now, maybe I don’t understand the Libby case. In my world, Libby was not the first person to out Plame. In my world, no one was even charged, let alone convicted our anything related to treason. In my world, Libby was convicted of perjury.

Now, of course, I believe but can not prove, that people like Libby, Rove and Cheney probably did commit treason in outing a CIA agent. However, those charges never were brought by the grand jury so no one was convicted of those crimes.

Kevo: I really don’t know what fantasy world you are living in but you aren’t living in the real world.

Although both Clinton and Libby obviously made false statements under oath, comparing their situations is extremely complicated, if not impossible.

Impeachment subjected Clinton to a political process, not a legal one. The threshold for conviction was a 2/3 majority of the Senate — a standard that was not even approached. The charge of perjury was defeated 45 for and 55 against; obstruction was defeated in a 50-50 split. Furthermore, while Clinton said he did not have sexual relations with Lewinsky in his January 1988 deposition, he admitted that he had an inappropriate relationship with Lewinsky in a subsequent August appearance before a grand jury. Clinton maintained that statements made in the earlier deposition were “legally accurate.”

Libby, on the other hand, was subjected to a legal process and was found guilty by the much higher standard of the unanimous decision of a jury. To my knowledge, Libby never admitted to making false statements but instead claimed to have a bad memory.Libby was found guilty on 4 of 5 counts.

Despite claims of the right wing noise machine, legal charges of perjury or obstruction were never filed against Clinton. The only legal charge came after the impeachment process was over, when U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright found Clinton in civil contempt for false statements in his January 1998 deposition. According to Wright, “the president’s deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false,” and referred the matter to the Arkansas Supreme Court. Clinton’s false statements about not being alone with Lewinsky in his deposition aren’t in dispute. His false statements about having sexual relations came down to hair-splitting (pun intended) of the flawed definition of sexual relations submitted by Paula Jone’s attorneys. Reasonable persons would conclude, as the Judge did, that he intentionally meant to mislead.

The bottom line is that they both lied. Clinton was tried in a political forum and was not convicted, although his license to practice law was suspended for a period of 5 years based violation of professional standards. Libby was tried in a legal forum and was convicted, clear and simple. Legally, I think that’s the long and short of it.

Where things get messy are in the non-legal, fairness issues surrounding the lies each told. Ken Starr had been after Clinton for years in an ever-expanding attempt to get him on something — anything — and the public knew it. To many, the fact that questions concerning Lewinsky came up out of the blue while Clinton was making a deposition in another case entirely (the Paula Jones sexual harassment suit) smacked of entrapment. Moreover, lying about a sexual affair between consenting adults — however despicable and utterly stupid — was seen by many as a less than impeachable, non-criminal offense. The fact that it was lied about under oath was mitigated by this and the sense that Starr entrapped Clinton. During the impeachment hearings, revelations of infidelity by Speaker Gingrich, his designated replacement, Bob Livingston, and House Manager Henry Hyde — all vocal and prominent critics of Clinton’s behavior, further diminished the seriousness of the charges against him in the public’s perception.

The potential victim of Clinton’s lie (other than the rule of law that says you’re supposed to tell the truth under oath) could only have been Paula Jones, and it remains unclear whether her suit was actually impeded. Jones’ suit had been dismissed in 1994 but was back on appeal when Clinton testified. Clinton eventually paid Jones (or more accurately, her lawyers) 850,000 to settle the case and was ordered by the judge to pick up an additional 125,000 or so in fees stemming from the charge of contempt. Through the impeachment and civil processes, the details of Clinton/Lewinsky eventually came to be known in excrutiating detail.

Libby’s lies, in Fitzgerald’s assessment, substantially impeded his investigation of the roles Cheney, Rove and others actually played in the outing of a covert CIA agent as political retribution and perhaps an attempt to stifle free speech through intimidation. Although Armitage appears to have been the first to tell a reporter about Plame, we still do not know what else occurred in the WH, thanks in part to Libby’s obstruction. Thanks to the commuted sentence by Bush, we may never know.

Neil,

for the love of god, I hope this finds it’s way through your thick skull down to your underused gray matter.

The reason Fitzgerald could not proceed with his prosecution of this crime against national security is because the key player, Libby, with the blessing of the President and the Vice-president, lied about his involvement and stonewalled the Grand Jury about what he knew. He obstructed justice.

You understand that? Good.

So that is why no charges were ever brought. Not because no crime was committed but because Scooter Libby’s silence and misdirection kept the prosecution from moving forward. OK?

This is what mobsters do, Neil. They obstruct justice to protect their cronies. George Bush has now furthered the obstruction by arranging matters so that Libby won’t be compelled to give testimony to reduce his sentence. He will also be allowed to plead the fifth in any civil proceedings.

As a citizen, you should be outraged. Instead you equivocate:

“but Clinton mew mew mew mew blow job mew mew mew”

Shame on you.

How can David Brooks get away with inhabiting a parallel universe? Does he really not know that that’s where he lives?

Scooter Libby = Paris Hilton. Only he’s a convicted felon, and she’s actually gone to jail.