It is becoming readily apparent to me that after the Martha stewart case, Clinton's impeachment and now this investigation involving Scooter Libby that most people feel the laws concerning perjury and obstruction are particularly harsh. Change the Law in three ways. First unless you are under oath lying is not a felony (Martha Stewart only lied to investigators NOT while under oath). Secondly if a lie is told concerning a civil litigation limit the penalties to civil ones (in this case Clinton lied concerning issues brought up in a civil law suit) and thirdly if one lies and the prosecutor cannot demonstrate or present a strong argument that the lies prevented a criminal indictment then as with the case of Libby the crime should only be a misdemeanor.

First off, Clinton's "perjury" was in a deposition in a case so weak it was tossed on summary.

Compare that the Martha Stewart, who's perjury was meant to protect her multi-million dollar profit

or Libby who's perjury was designed to obstruct an investigation into potential treason or at least malfeasence by high government officials.

In each case the criminal consequences meted out were progressively harsher - in keeping with the serverity of the crimes (Clinton temporarily surrendered his Bar license, Stewart got 5 months and Libby got 30 mos).

I don't see much public outcry defending Libby. Sure there is a well tuned and orchestrated conservative chorus, but questioning whether it was Constitutional to appoint a Special Prosecutor to convene a Grand Jury? Please, that IS a stretch worthy of a 1st year law student and not much more.

All three were indicted or convicted of felonies

Stewart did NOT commit perjury. She lied to criminal investigators in untranscribed interview and was convicted of a felony. Again Clintons case involved a civil suit which to my knowledge perjury in those cases never or almost never have led to criminal indictments (impeachment is considered a felony criminal indictment). The conservatives have a valid point - if you can't demonstrate that an investigation interferes with a criminal indictment (treason - give me a break) then it should not be a felony.

My only point in this is the law should be changed. Libby knew the ground rules going into this investigation and should pay the consequences. However again since the prosecutor could not demonstrate his false testimony blocked a felony indictment he should have been guilty of a misdemeanor.

It has been said time and time again that the obstruction is often considered worse than the crime and I believe that most people do not want the laws to be as such (Dershowitz's lame argument provides ample support of this fact). The changes I recommend would help to prevent it from happening

Martha Clinton didn't commit perjury. As Dan has said, she lied in an untranscripted comment to an investigator (and the chief witness against her DID commit perjury, and was tried for it, but I can't remember if there was a conviction).

Bill Clinton committed perjury in a civil case, regardless of whether that case had merit. He was deposed under oath and lied. Under current law, that was worthy of a felony indictment. Does the law need to be changed? Maybe.

Scooter Libby either lied, or misremembered, a conversation with a reporter (it's his word against the reporter). So he either did or didn't obstruct justice, depending on which testimony you believe. If he did, he's guilty of perjury, too.

i agree about the martha clinton thing...

but bill simply couldn't get laid and scooter was fighting a war...

it's time the fbi and cia were provided with adult supervision.

maybe when dubya pardons scooter he could fire a whole bunch of people before hand?

Well when Hellery Stewart gets elected President will she still keep her TV cooking show?

How about this: DON'T LIE. HW74

Last I checked, scooter was part of the Terrorism task force, who was more focussed on outing Plame then on chasing Bin Laden. That doesn't count as "fighting a war".

Point made about Stewart - but the "relative harm" and "relative impact" still applies. And I don't think there is any sort of public sentiment supporting the idea that Stewart should have gotten off and Libby should have gotten a misdemeanor conviction.

Sure, there is a core 35% that believes Libby was wrongly convicted. But that's about the extent of it. And MOST of the public I would say feels that lying to a cop is and should be a crime.

And MOST of the public I would say, feels that covering up potentially criminal acts in government IS and SHOULD be a felony

and MOST of the public (based on Clinton's 65% approval rating) believe that lying about having sex during a frivolous civil case (and anything tossed on summary is by definition frivolous) is NOT and should not be a Felony.

I don't think you have a case that the public in general opposes Libby's sentence.

There you have it, the public sentiment. Though some leeway is given for lying about private sex in a frivolous lawsuit.

When you say don't lie, surely you don't think that should apply to the rich and powerful, as well!

Speeding kills people and should be made a felony. People should be locked up for it I think. I am a responsible driver who has driven for 35 years and have never received a speeding ticket. Why can't everyone else? My point in the discussion concerning perjury is the punishment should fit the crime. Stewart, Clinton and Libby all committed crimes. However in my judgment they don't rise to the level of being a felony. The fact that friends of the defendant rose to their defense indicates there is a general feeling in all of the cases I mentioned that the penalties were too severe.

I heard little public outcry that the republicans who have committed fraud or stolen from the government should be pardoned. Everyone agrees their crimes are horrible felonies and should be severely punished.

Would you limit the penalty to a fine in most cases? This would encourage perjury as it would become a cost assessment.

Lastly, would you lower the bar for conviction below "beyond a reasonalbe doubt" to something along the civil threshold, i.e. the preponderance of evidence. Keep in mind that this probably would have snagged Rove and who knows else.

1) Truth is the fundamental underpinning to our entire system of justice. Driving is fundamental to me getting to work.

2) Perjury shuts down entire lines of inquiry, making it impossible/difficult to show that it obstructed downstream felony investigations. One piece of info leads to another, to another to another, etc. Requiring that a specific act of perjury be directly tied to a subsequent inability to prosecute someone for a crime would make perjury generally unenforcable as a felony.

3) Publishment with fines would mean that for rich or well connected people like Scooter, perjury would have no practical consequences.

I for one cannot understand why all these people are coming to Scooter's defense. He clearly lied in a way that obstructed an important investigation. I mean, I'm sure he's a nice guy and a good neighbor, but what gives?

In civil cases I would (they do already). In criminal cases it would be a misdemeanor unless the prosecutor can say the preponderance of evidence indicates the person prevented or interfered with a criminal indictment. Lying to investigators would be a misdemeanor if the conversation is not taped or transcripted.

For the most part this is the way the law is applied anyway. But since prosecutors have become so aggressive these days it appears as with judges in the past they need to be placed on a shorter leash