Libby lied to federal investigators and to the grand jury in order to cover up an abuse of power by his superiors.

It wasn't too long ago that his Republican colleagues believed that perjury in order to cover up an embarassing personal situation that was really nobody's business was sufficient grounds to impeach a president.

How times have changed.

so can you explain to me why libby is serving time while clinton isn't, for essentially the same crime?

Because, as someone else mentioned in a separate thread, he was acquitted while Libby was convicted?

Because Mr. Clinton wasn't indicted by a Federal Grand Jury and then proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to a (petite) jury in Federal District Court? Because the sanction for impeachment by Congress is removal from office, not imprisonment, and (as others have noted) Congress acquitted Mr. Clinton? Because the ultimate sanction available to the Arkansas State Bar is disbarment, not imprisonment, and (as others have also noted) Mr. Clinton has lost his Arkansas Bar license? Because apples are red or green with a thin skin and a dense core where the seeds are concentrated and oranges are, well, orange with a thick rind and seeds spread throughout the pulp?

clinton was disbarred by both the state of arkansas and the US supreme court for lying under oath.

there is a link at the bottom.

do you not read newspapers, or simply ignore what you disagree with?

<link>

do you not read newspapers, or simply ignore what you disagree with?

I'm a little confused as to who you're replying to. Your earlier question--as to why Libby was doing time and why Clinton isn't--was answered, including an acknowledgement that Clinton was disbarred.

The short answer, just in case you didn't understand it: none of the actions against Clinton carried the possibility of imprisonment as a sanction. In those actions in which the prosecuting agency adjudicated Clinton guilty/responsible, Clinton received the maximum sanction available. Capiche?

There are all sorts of reasons people who could be indicted aren't indicted, and not just for "technicalities" like obstruction of justice. It also happens in drug cases, property crimes, white-collar crimes and even in instances where a violent crime is alleged. Sometimes the reasons are good ones--and sometimes it just boils down to life not being particularly fair.

For whatever it's worth, had Clinton been indicted and prosecuted and convicted and sent to jail I might have been irked by whether it was sensible policy to try someone for lying about sex, but I wouldn't have been complaining about due process of law or a legally permitted sentence. As I said somewhere else, "them's the rules." If you want to claim that it's bad policy to try someone for lying about divulging the possibly-secret identity of a CIA employee to the press, have at it. (Didn't Jack Shafer write a reasonably well-thought Slate column along those lines a while back, if memory serves?) That's all well and good. But that's not really what Hitchens is arguing, as far as I can tell. As far as I can tell, Hitchens is complaining that when Libby landed on "Chance" and drew "Go To Jail, Go Directly To Jail, Do Not Pass Go," he should have been allowed to end up on "Free Parking" instead. (At least he doesn't seem to be arguing that Libby should also collect the kitty some players have as a house rule, too.)

And on that note, let me add: if an appellate court decides that there was some error that merits Libby a new trial, them's also the rules. Won't matter whether I agree with them or not, it is what it is.

Now, for the sake of openness, if you're going to accuse me of a certain amount of schadenfreude over the fact that a member of an administration that's shown a general contempt for the judiciary and the law of the land has been felled by the judiciary and the law of the land, I'll plead guilty. And if you're accusing me of being irate that Libby's attorneys and many of his supporters seem to think that Libby's exalted position as a Washington insider should carry some perks or consideration that lower-class criminals don't receive: also guilty. But it's wholly non-partisan: I really don't care what party Libby belongs to. (Did I mention I'm an independent?)

but allow me to add one more thought:

Isn't there a major difference between being mousetrapped into lying to cover up an embarassing sexual escapade between consenting adults and lying to cover up a deliberate attempt to intimidate a political opponent by destroying his wife's career and blowing the cover of a CIA agent?