From: "Robert G Lewis" 

Thanks for the clarification.


"Gary Britt"  wrote in message
news:435d19c7$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> Not exactly the same thing with regard to Clinton and what Senator
> Hutchinson was referring.  Clinton was accused of some lying technicality
> during his sworn testimony before Star or to FBI regarding Star's
> investigation.  Clinton's perjury was directly in the face of a federal
> judge in obstruction of an injured female employee's federal sexual
> harassment trial against Clinton.
>
> Star was then asked by the Clinton attorney general to investigate the
> Clinton perjury.  The perjury charges weren't brought to justify Star's
> whitewater investigation which is what John and Monte were falsely trying
> to
> state/imply.
>
> Gary
>
>
> "Robert G Lewis"  wrote in message
> news:435d0fcb{at}w3.nls.net...
>>
>> "John Cuccia"  wrote in message
>> news:k1ppl1d5qit6v4k2psmvdn33qhmd1cn7lt{at}4ax.com...
>> > On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 08:55:05 -0400, "Robert Comer"
>> >  wrote:
>> >
>> >>> "I certainly hope that if there is going to be
an indictment that
>> >>> says
>> >>> something happened, that it is an indictment on a
crime and not some
>> >>> perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on
the crime, so they
>> >>> go to something just to show that their two years of
investigation
>> >>> were not a waste of time and dollars."
>> >>
>> >>Err, perjury *is* a crime...
>> >
>> > C'mon, get with the program, Bob.
>> >
>> > It's only a crime if a Democrat does it.
>> >
>> > Here's another reminder:
>> >
> http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/239rebkj.asp
>> > And here is the point: Unless the perjury is clear-cut or the
>> > obstruction of justice willful and determined, we hope that the
>> > special prosecutor has the courage to end the inquiry without bringing
>> > indictments.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> From the same article
>> But it may not have, too. Press reports suggest that Fitzgerald is
> unlikely
>> to bring charges under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of
>> 1982,
>> the original act whose possible violation he was charged with
> investigating.
>> Based on what we know, and absent startling revelations, it would seem to
> be
>> a huge prosecutorial overreach to bring charges under the 1917 Espionage
>> Act. So we are presumably left with possible instances of perjury,
>> obstruction of justice, and false statements to the FBI or the grand
>> jury.
>>
>>
>>
>> Remind me what Starr was charged with investigating and when Clinton
>> committed his perjury.
>>
>>
>>
>> As far as I'm concerned ANYONE involved in the outing has NO BUSINESS
> being
>> in the government. They put their political hardball AHEAD of the
>> interest
>> of the United States. Even if accidental that is totally unacceptable for
>> anyone with access to classified information. Anyone who ever worked with
>> the Brewster Jennings  for is at risk.. Anyone who associated with them
>> is
>> at risk. Any ongoing intel operations done under that cover is at risk as
>> are anyone who worked with them, it may or may not be a crime but anyone
>> involved is too careless or clueless to be in government.
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5