Senators who favored Clinton impeachment silent on Libby.
By on Jul 5th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Senators who favored Clinton impeachment silent on Libby.
Of the 25 current Senators who voted in 1999 to impeach President Bill Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice, none have issued a public statement on the commutation of Cheney aide “Scooter” Libby’s sentence for the same crime in the three days since it occurred.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
( )
July 5th, 2007 at 12:28 pmOf course they’re silent. That is a no-brainer.
This is creepy though-
July 5th, 2007 at 12:29 pmPutins version of the Hitler Youth?
Well of course not!
All Scooter did was help out a CIA agent and then impede an investigation.
Bill Clinton LIED about a hummer.
You’d have to be stupid to not see the difference!
July 5th, 2007 at 12:30 pm“Senators who favored Clinton impeachment silent on Libby.”
I’m shocked! Shocked I tell you! (eyeroll)
July 5th, 2007 at 12:37 pmDid TP mean that those 25 Sens. voting to convict? Senators caint impeach.
Of course, Clinton was acquitted politically by his fellow dems and became immune to further prosecution w/ no probation, but did have to pay a fine roughly three times that of Libby’s. Despite the evidence, however, Clinton doesn’t have a criminal record following him, while Libby does.
July 5th, 2007 at 12:39 pmThe Republican Senators were heard to say, “The HYPOCRISY!! Aiiigh! IT BURNS!
cowards.
July 5th, 2007 at 12:40 pmIt’s simple: Oral sex is a national security threat; lying during the investigation of outing a covert CIA agent is an every day occurrence.
July 5th, 2007 at 12:40 pmThere has always been a different measure for Clinton VS. any other republican.
July 5th, 2007 at 12:41 pmAl Gore’s son is now qualified to be a republican president.
July 5th, 2007 at 12:41 pmand tell “why do you think this is strange?” it has always been the elephant over the eagle.
July 5th, 2007 at 12:41 pmThat’s because they haven’t received permission from the VP.
July 5th, 2007 at 12:41 pmOf course, Clinton was acquitted politically by his fellow dems and became immune to further prosecution w/ no probation, but did have to pay a fine roughly three times that of Libby’s. Despite the evidence, however, Clinton doesn’t have a criminal record following him, while Libby does.
Comment by CT_V1, Dean of Dissent — July 5, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
Of course, Clinton was acquitted legally in the Senate, not just politically, and Scooter was CONVICTED in a court of law. That’s why Scooter has a criminal record and Clinton doesn’t.
And Scooter’s criminal record remains because it serves Bush’ needs. If he were to pardon Scooter and clear his record, then Scooter could be called to testify about the matter without the benefit of the Fifth Amendment to shield him and the BushCo henchmen.
July 5th, 2007 at 12:43 pmHey! look over there! Something off-topic!
July 5th, 2007 at 12:48 pmLibby will be employed by faux by the end of the month. The reich-wing LOVES their criminals.
July 5th, 2007 at 12:50 pmCOWARDS!!
Where’s the courage of your convictions now, ya tossers?
July 5th, 2007 at 12:50 pmCondemning Bush for pardoning Libby would be intellectually honest. Don’t we all know by now that intellectual honesty is not consistent with the Bush Republican agenda of power grabs, greed, corruption, cronyism and never-ending lies and excuses. Asking a Bush Republican to criticize Bush is akin to asking a rotten spoiled rich American kid not to sniff Cocaine, drink until he can’t see or show up for his National Guard meetings. Why should he do the right thing when his mommy and daddy don’t have the internal values to teach him the difference between doing what’s right instead of covering his ass when he repeatedly does what’s wrong?
July 5th, 2007 at 12:51 pm“Law and order” conservatives believe that law and order are for other people.
July 5th, 2007 at 12:59 pmWhat? Republicans are a bunch of hypocrites??? STOP THE PRESSES!
July 5th, 2007 at 12:59 pmComment by spit take
Good morning, Mr. Take
Clinton was legally acquitted in the Senate, but as you can imagine, there’s going to be a political tinge to it, – even if he was convicted. Not advocating for Senate conservatives, by the way, just rallying against the political nature of these debates. Sometimes, there’s no question about going forth with impeachment, however, as Nixon was the obviously prime example.
And about Clinton’s non-conviction in a court of law, that’s where my comments stem. He became immune to prosecution only after paying a fine and agreeing to a suspension to his law license, which I saw to be rather unfair. It means that Clinton had the voluntary opportunity of sparing himself any trials in a court of law, while Libby couldn’t do that on similar counts.
The remainder of your comments, I believe to be true.
July 5th, 2007 at 1:00 pmWhat are they going to do? Remove him from office?
July 5th, 2007 at 1:04 pmDuh, because most GOPer Senators are hypocrites.
July 5th, 2007 at 1:09 pmCT_V1,
“It means that Clinton had the voluntary opportunity of sparing himself any trials in a court of law, while Libby couldn’t do that on similar counts.”
Yes he could have. I’m sure that Fitzgerald offered a plea deal in return for truthful testimony. Do you really think he didn’t have a plea bargain option?
He chose to fight it, because he knew he would see no time. Come on man you must see this.
July 5th, 2007 at 1:17 pmClinton, his pardons were very different: He sold them to the highest bidder!!! Denise Rich contributed $70,000 to Hillary’s Senatorial campaign fund, and over $1 million to Democratic causes in advance of securing a pardon for her ex-husband Marc Rich.
July 5th, 2007 at 1:20 pmReach, Reach, Reach, why would the senators have anythign to say about this? They are not involved in legal cases, they were involved in the impeachment procedings. It makes no sense for them to have any formal statement on this. Did they say anything about Clinton pardoning people for obstruction of justice, no? If they had then that would have been a logical connection, this is pathetic.
July 5th, 2007 at 1:23 pmCT_V1-
July 5th, 2007 at 1:27 pmIronically there is no evidence that Scooter Libby even ASKED for a commutation. It was simply offered by the POTUS. Clinton’s was a civil case and was aquitted despite a heavily Republican majority in the Senate. YOU may imagine a political “tinge” but you’d be in the vast minority (20%). Libby was found guilty in a Republican judges court and prosecuted by a Republican prosecutor. I fail to see where politics played a role in his conviction. His commutation on the other hand reaks of bi-partisanship coming from the champion of strict harsh federal sentencing himself.
If impeachment hearings were to begin, these 25 Senators would be FORCED to either publicly defend the Obstructioner in Chief or quietly vote for what they know is right for this country. Either way this President has put all of them between a rock & hard place with their seats up for grabs in the not so distant future. Most Americans may tend toward complacency when it comes to the workings of politics in this country but EVERYONE understands letting someone off the hook to protect your own interests.
And about Clinton’s non-conviction in a court of law, that’s where my comments stem. He became immune to prosecution only after paying a fine and agreeing to a suspension to his law license, which I saw to be rather unfair. It means that Clinton had the voluntary opportunity of sparing himself any trials in a court of law, while Libby couldn’t do that on similar counts.
The remainder of your comments, I believe to be true.
Comment by CT_V1, Dean of Dissent — July 5, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
Libby could have spared himself a trial in a court of law had he told the truth to the FBI and to the Special Prosecutor. He did not do that.
Clinton was impeached on the charges of perjury and obstruction of justice and he was acquitted in the Senate. Libby was tried on very similar charges and convicted in a court of law.
Libby was investigated by the Bush DOJ and a Republican prosecutor and was sentenced by a Bush-appointed judge.
I would say that Clinton faced a much harsher political environment that Libby.
July 5th, 2007 at 1:34 pmComment by BobbyD
I think you need to read my posts a little harder. It irks me when people take my words out of context.
July 5th, 2007 at 1:46 pmGuys, where do you live??? I’m not American and I suspect I have a better grasp on Clinton’s impeachment.
Clinton’s impeachment failed. It was related to perjury in the Paula Jones case which was dismissed as being trivial by the courts as Jones could show no damage to her life or career. An out-of-court settlement was reached between Jones & Clinton and Jones withdrew her appeal. However, the misleading evidence he gave about Monica Lewinsky got Clinton a hefty fine and his law license suspended.
Impeachment is not a substitute for the courts. It is merely a means of removing people from public office. There is no Double Jeopardy involved and a person impeached for, say, taking bribes can still be charged, tried, convicted and sent to jail after impeachment. Clinton’s acquital during his iimpeachment trial did not make him immune from further prosecution –indeed, I’ve already mentioned his further punishment.
Of course, the Paula Jones case was trivial. Not of the same caliber as outing Ms Plame. The evidence of the “blue dress” was obtained by Linda Tripp by illegally taping her phone conversations with Monica Lewinsky. And, curiously, although evidence of past sexual conduct was permitted in the Jones case, it is not clear why conduct that happened long after should be considered or why Jones should have considered a vulgar proposition to be harassment when, by her own admission, Clinton zipped up when she rejected him and she suffered no consequences in her job and never heard from Clinton again.
Republicans have a tough time distinguishing between fact and supposition. And, in the Libby case, they keep touting the Defence argument as if it was true instead of accepting the jury’s verdict. They also have a problem with reality. Namely, they seem to think Clinton got away with something even though Clinton was severely reprimanded, fined, and lost his law license; there was never a question of jail time for a civil lawsuit.
Libby, however, could have been sentenced to up to ten years. The outing of Plame was a crime and a threat to national security and may have endangered the lives of anyone who had been befriended by Plame in her spying role. And Libby was covering up for what may have been broader crimes in the White House. And it wasn’t simply a quibble over what was “sex”; he talked and lied and misrepresented. And he never EVER came clean. Clinton did tell the truth eventually.
But I don’t expect Republicans to get it. They prefer to think they are above the herd and that what is a crime to your & me is simply creative license to them. They are all Ollie Norths.
July 5th, 2007 at 1:50 pmSenators who favored Clinton impeachment silent on Libby
So.
What does Clinton’s impeachment have to do with Libby?
July 5th, 2007 at 1:56 pmCT-V1-
July 5th, 2007 at 2:02 pmNobody needs to read your posts “a little harder” to see that you have no grasp of the facts or consideration for the illegal implications being thrown at your lord, Bush. What was taken out of context? What has pulled politics into these conversations is your parties penchance for party over country.
It’s what your President has stood for, along with his core of ultra-conservative mouth pieces in the Senate. Impeachment proceedings (which seems to be what they are begging for) would force these neocons to voice an opinion and I think it can’t come soon enough. Not because I’m a democrat but because I’m an American who can’t stand what’s been done to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution during His tenure.
Comment by BobbyD
You’re offering nothing but talking points and projection, Mr. Bob. Again, you should try harder to correctly read the postings.
July 5th, 2007 at 2:04 pmComment by BobbyD
I believe that the actions of a previous administration is certainly for scrutiny, regardless of you political discomfort.
July 5th, 2007 at 2:05 pmCorrection: I believe that the actions of a previous administration is certainly up for scrutiny, regardless of your political discomfort.
July 5th, 2007 at 2:07 pmWhat kind of BS is this? What do you mean “immune”? It isn’t immunity to pay a huge fine and lose one’s law license. Clinton was also ordered to pay some of Jones’ legal bills.
It seems to me CT_V1 that you want people to suffer Double Jeopardy and to be sentenced to what crimes you think they are guilty of. As punishment for admitting perjury in a dismissed civil lawsuit, Clinton’s punishment was higher than average. He did not get off lightly.
Again, Republicans love to compare Apples to Oranges. That why they freak out at progressive taxation rates. And yet they fail to realize that everyone pays the same percentage in each tax bracket. Someone in the highest bracket isn’t paying that percentage on their entire income, but only the income in that upper bracket.
Of course, it’s sick to think that lying about one’s involvement in outting a CIA agent is somehow comparable to lying about keeping a little consensual sex private. (Again, Paula Jones’s accusations were trivial. Clinton may have propositioned her, but he did not harrass her. Nor did he harrass Monica Lewinsky. The whole sordid story had nothing to do with criminal behaviour, national security, or even women’s rights.) Valerie Plame, however, was trashed because her husband disagreed with and embarrassed the White House. Now, is that a crime???
July 5th, 2007 at 2:07 pmWhat does Clinton’s impeachment have to do with Libby?
Comment by Mr. President — July 5, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
Let’s see… administration official charged with prejury and obstruction of justice…
nah, no similarity there. No reason that a Republican should not call for the most drastic remedy in one case (Democrat charged) and amnesty in the other (Republican CONVICTED)… that doesn’t show even a little bit of IOKIYAR hypocrisy.
July 5th, 2007 at 2:12 pmMr President is a fascist. He believes Republicans are angels and Democrats are devils. He doesn’t think there’s any reason to believe differently.
Yes, the reason the silence of the 25 Republican Senators is so telling is that, although Clinton was charged with perjury & obstruction of justice in a defunct civil lawsuit, these very Senators became all self-righteous about the Truth and Honesty and Integrity and that No One is Above the Law. That Clinton was not facing anything more severe in private life than a fine didn’t seem to matter to them. Nor did they connect that impeachment usually has to do with Treason, Bribery, and failure to Uphold & Defend the Constitution. Clinton’s case was trivial and absurd. Libby faced the same charges and, although his crime involved the current government, national security, and public corruption, Republicans pretended it was trivial and irrelevant. How absurd!!!
July 5th, 2007 at 2:23 pmIt seems to me CT_V1 that you want people to suffer Double Jeopardy and to be sentenced to what crimes you think they are guilty of.
Double jeopardy is only being tried twice in one kind of court. The Senate trial was political, the courts are civil/criminal. Clinton, regardless of his admittances in a political arena, should have been offered nothing less than a guilty plea in a court of law, not immunity for his crimes.
Otherwise, thank you for your talking points.
July 5th, 2007 at 2:24 pmThe Senate trial was political, the courts are civil/criminal. Clinton, regardless of his admittances in a political arena, should have been offered nothing less than a guilty plea in a court of law, not immunity for his crimes.
Otherwise, thank you for your talking points.
Comment by CT_V1, Dean of Dissent — July 5, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
I’m not sure what you mean by “the Senate trial was political”. It carried real legal consequences. It’s not as if someone woiuld lose a committee chair or something insignificant. It would have removed a sitting president from office had he been convicted.
The reason Clinton did not offer a guilty plea in a court of law is because he was not charged in a court of law with perjury or obstruction of justice. Pretty simple. There was no case there that anyone but partisan Republicans were inclined to pursue.
It’s disingenuos at best to try to make a moral or legal equivalency between Clinton’s testimony in the Paula Jones civil case and Libby’s testimony to the FBI and to the Special prosecutor relating to the outing of a covert agent during wartime, and to try to claim that the processes or the punishments should have been comparable.
What can legitimately be compared is the commitment to “Rule of Law” displayed by Republican senators in one case as opposed to the other.
July 5th, 2007 at 2:33 pmCowards and hypocrites.
July 5th, 2007 at 3:25 pmIt’s disingenuos at best to try to make a moral or legal equivalency between Clinton’s testimony in the Paula Jones civil case and Libby’s testimony to the FBI and to the Special prosecutor relating to the outing of a covert agent during wartime, and to try to claim that the processes or the punishments should have been comparable.
What can legitimately be compared is the commitment to “Rule of Law†displayed by Republican senators in one case as opposed to the other.
Comment by spit take — July 5, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
**********************************************************
On November 13, 1998, Clinton settled with Jones for $850,000, the entire amount of her claim, but without an apology, in exchange for her agreement to drop the appeal. All but $151,000 went to pay, what were by then, considerable legal expenses. Before the end of the entire litigation, her marriage broke apart.
In April 1999, Judge Wright found President Clinton in civil contempt of court for misleading testimony in the Jones case. She ordered Clinton to pay Jones $91,000 for the expenses incurred as the result of Clinton’s evasive and misleading answers. [4] Wright then referred Clinton’s conduct to the Arkansas Bar for disciplinary action, and on January 19, 2001, the day before President Clinton left the White House, Clinton entered into an agreement with the Arkansas Bar and Independent Counsel Robert Ray under which Clinton consented to a five-year suspension of his law license. [5]
With the adducement of further evidence in the case President Clinton was held in contempt of court by judge Susan Webber Wright[6]. His license to practice law was suspended in Arkansas and later by the United States Supreme Court [7]. He was also fined $90,000 [8]. His fine was paid for by a legal fund raised for his legal expenses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones
July 5th, 2007 at 3:50 pmCampesino good, Chuck Norris Good!
July 5th, 2007 at 3:58 pmCampesino good, Chuck Norris Good!
Comment by Flaco — July 5, 2007 @ 3:58 pm
BAHAHA, yeah, selling out our national security is the same thing as a greedy gold digging woman, acting as a pawn for Mellon-Scaife and the rest of the rabid right-wing conspiracy hate and smear fest…
BAHAHA, you’re both dum bass b!tches!
July 5th, 2007 at 4:02 pmand can we PLEASE not forget that clinton was impeached for lying about an affair? and not for lying us into a war?
July 5th, 2007 at 4:03 pmThey can’t comment yet. They haven’t got the “talking points” from the White House yet.
What? You thought they thought for themselves?
July 5th, 2007 at 4:29 pmHmm, let me see.. Clinton lied under oath, Scooter Libby either could not, or would not remember.. Somehow, one doesn’t corelate to the other as well.. Next Bush, (As much as I think he’s an idiot), has pardoned fewer people during his entire term, than clinton did his last month.
July 5th, 2007 at 4:41 pmHmm, let me see.. Clinton lied under oath, Scooter Libby either could not, or would not remember.. Somehow, one doesn’t corelate to the other as well.. Next Bush, (As much as I think he’s an idiot), has pardoned fewer people during his entire term, than clinton did his last month.
Comment by Douglas G.
For months, all we’ve been hearing from the Bushbots is “Clinton lied! Clinton did it too!” and suddenly the Clenis is irrelevant? What a riot.
The jury determined that Libby lied under oath, fool, none of this “couldn’t remember” eyewash.
Try to get this through your head: Clinton did not pardon anyone who was working in the White House with information about activities by the President and Vice President.
July 5th, 2007 at 4:50 pmThe republicans have a double standard. They are willing to ignore the rule of law for one of their own. The Clinton impeachment was politically motivated, and ill deserved. Clinton lied about an affair. There was no national security issue involved. However, in the Libby case, key members of the White House inner circle, including Libby were involved in outing a covert CIA agent to get back at her husband who criticized the administration’s rationale for this war.
This was a political vendetta against Ambassador Wilson. This case from the beginning went to the false rationale presented to the American people for going to war with a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 or bin Laden. This White House cherry picked the intelligence to make the intelligence fit the policy instead of basing the policy around the intelligence.
July 5th, 2007 at 5:44 pmStart asking every one of them for public comment.
July 5th, 2007 at 5:44 pmThey favored impeachment based on the fact that Clinton, as President lied, and that a president who lies to the People should be impeached. Well….
July 6th, 2007 at 12:29 amQuizmos care to discuss Marc Rich ?
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,99302,00.html
I did’nt think so
July 6th, 2007 at 12:55 amThe republic of Stupidity your name fits , you are stupid
July 6th, 2007 at 12:57 amProbus don’t use law and order and Democrats in the same sentence without the word HYPOCRITE
July 6th, 2007 at 12:58 am#
and can we PLEASE not forget that clinton was impeached for lying about an affair? and not for lying us into a war?
Comment by bill — July 5, 2007 @ 4:03 pm
Bill lets try not to LIE
Clinton was impeached for lying to a grand jury in a civil rights violation case of a woman . I hate LYING DEMWITS
July 6th, 2007 at 1:02 amand can we PLEASE not forget that clinton was impeached for lying about an affair? and not for lying us into a war?
Comment by bill — July 5, 2007 @ 4:03 pm
And about that “lying us into war”…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64
But then, being a “progressive” means never having to deal with the facts.
July 6th, 2007 at 11:24 am