Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
I've been reading some of the conservative defenses of Scooter Libby, saying he shouldn't have been convicted for lying to federal investigators, and that this case should never have been brought because there was no underlying crime. What I can't figure out is how this defense is substantively different from Clinton defenders who claimed that Our Bill ought not have been impeached for lying under oath, because lying about sex is no big deal.
Conservatives rightly rejected that argument then, saying that truth-telling under oath is the basis of our justice system. So why is that position invalid now that it's got a Republican's rear end in a crack of his own making? Seriously, what's the difference?
Lying about sex, lying about gossip
Wednesday March 7, 2007
posted
by
Crunchy Con
@ 9:50am
Permalink
Email This 
Add to »
Subscribe
Comments
How can "no" mean no, if "sex" doesn't even mean sex?
Posted by: Max Schadenfreude | March 12, 2007 2:07 AM
I agree that lying under oath, about anything, is a big deal. But I also believe that no citizen of a free country should ever be placed under oath to testify about sex between consenting adults. What ever happened to the great American value of minding one's own business? What Clinton should have said at the infamous deposition was, "None of your business." Unfortunately, if he had, he would certainly have ended up in jail, because that is the one answer our legal system does not permit.
Posted by: HASH(0xba9267c) | March 12, 2007 10:20 PM
Actually, Starr spent $71 million of your and my dollars. Not $40 million.
Posted by: Rawlins Gilliland | March 15, 2007 6:07 AM
Hi webmaster!
Posted by: Kazelpma | August 12, 2008 6:17 AM
Hi webmaster!
Posted by: Kazelnuv | August 12, 2008 6:29 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?