Tell it to Scooter Libby.

And I think the fact that he was so extremely cocky (no pun intended) with reporters while knowing full well it was a lie, just made him that much more dispicable to us. He’s a jerk. At least Clinton was a little more personable, although I’ve personally never been a fan.

The law may seem like nitpicking and hairsplitting. Sometimes, of course, it is. But the reason for the careful attention to words and what they mean is that therein lie important safeguards to our liberty, and protection from the overreach of the law or of the mob.

Your informant lawyer is an example of that overreach. The Constitution, and guilt and innocence, can and do still matter. But it is another form of overreach to decide that perjury consists of a misleading statement under oath by a person you don’t like. It is not.

By the way, I never was a Clinton fan, even when I was a Democrat and voted for him.

Which is one of the problems with the law as practiced today. It really is more about clever wordsmithing and not so much about justice.

As one lawyer told me, “The law is what we say it is. The Constitution and all those old ideas of weighing guilt and innocence no longer carry as much weight.”

Kinda explains why there is a TEA Party.

Still it remains obvious, at least to me, that he knowingly committed perjury per the definition supplied by Neo. 1.) The statement was made under oath. 2.) The statement concerning the issue at hand, sexual relations with Lewinsky, was material and relevant to Jones’ accusation. 3.) Clinton certainly had an intent to deceive. However, instead of being judged guilty of perjury, Clinton was held to be in civil contempt of court by Judge Susan Wright (ironically one of his former law students) and his license to practice law in Arkansas was suspended for 5 years. The SCOTUS later upheld that suspension.

In the Clinton case, the charge of perjury was weak and could not be proved. Hence the “perjury” charge failed not only to be carried with the 2/3rds vote but failed to garner even a simple majority (45-55) which included 10 Republicans. Probably because the Senators (many lawyers among them) had a much clearer idea of what the meaning of “perjury” is than laymen. Obstruction also failed at 50/50 votes. Hence, whether we like or not, Clinton was in a formal and irrevocable manner found not guilty of the high crimes and misdemeanors specifically charged.

Saying he “shoulda woulda couda” means exactly nothing after the fact of acquittal. Saying “I woulda” means zero, zip, squat, nada other than “I pulled out a plum and said what a good boy am I.” It’s blathering.

Did Clinton skate? Why yes he did by being found not guilty. Was he guilty? No he wasn’t since he was found “not guilty.”

Still a bitter pill after all these years and still met with the “yes, but…” sputter, but still the truth.

Nor do I think that Clinton was correct to trust Lewinsky. Nothing he did in the entire incident, from start to finish, was correct. My point was a different one—merely that, just playing the odds, it’s a better bet to trust one person whom you actually know and can evaluate in person, compared to six (or more people) you’ve never even met. The chances of exposure in the latter case is even greater, and therefore the action more stupid.

How about a “squawk” of feminists?