Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

Most of the Clinton investigations didn't look like much at first, either.

It is telling that Fitz hasn't closed out the investigation yet.

Cycloptichorn

Cyclopitchorn wrote:

It is telling that Fitz hasn't closed out the investigation yet.

I can tell that you don't know a single thing about complex cases tried by the Federal Prosecutor, Cyclopitchorn.

Some of them last for years!!!

If you could do it, then obviously its been a waste to grant that time and money to Fitzgerald, who's come up with only a single indictment, and that not only wholly unrelated to the matter central to the investigation, depending instead from an issue internal to the investigation process, but also - to this point - of questionable strength, and even if it survives challenge, there has been neither plea nor trial, no conviction.


Straw man - Libby is a component of the the Plame Game, yes. Abramoff, Cunningham, et al, are not. Those convicted pursuant to the Starr investigations were convicted pursuant to the Starr investigations, they were components of that game.


Another straw man - I misrepresented nothing, I explicitly said the Senate's acquital was by a 55/45 vote ''' " ... the Senate's acquital by an essentially party-line vote of 55-45 ... "

Timberlandko_ I am afraid that Parados, as usual, cannot read-

Here is what you wrote_

Nonsense - the Clinton witch hunt produced at least 15 convictions(*), Clinton's impeachment by Congress, the Senate's acquital by an essentially party-line vote of 55-45 on one of the articles of impeachment, Perjury, and a 50-50 split vote on the other, Obstruction of Justice (a 60/40 vote being required to convict), revocation of his license to practice law, and he was assessed a fine and costs.

Here is what the noncomprhending Parados wrote


You seem to have misrepresented the Senate vote Timber, it was 45-55 with 55 voting to acquit vs 60/40 needed to convict. They didn't get over 50% vote on either charge. It wasn't even a simple majority let alone the 60%


Here was your answer:


Another straw man - I misrepresented nothing, I explicitly said the Senate's acquital was by a 55/45 vote ''' " ... the Senate's acquital by an essentially party-line vote of 55-45 ... "

AND HERE IS MY ADDITION---



January 19, 200, 2 pm EST
CLINTON ADMITS HE 'MISLED,' AVOIDS INDICTMENT

President Clinton today admitted for the first time that he intentionally misled the government and the public about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.



Online Special:

Investigating President Clinton.




The White House


On his last day in office, Clinton agreed to accept a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license.

In exchange, Clinton will receive immunity from further prosecution and avoids a possible indictment on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice after he leaves office.

Clinton acknowledged he knowingly gave false answers to questions about Lewinsky when he was deposed in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case. Clinton said today's agreement brings "complete closure" to the matter.

"I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish that goal and that certain of my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false," Clinton said in a written statement read by Press Secretary Jake Siewert.

In an agreement reached with Independent Counsel Robert Ray, Clinton agreed to pay a $25,000 fine and not to seek compensation for attorneys' fees he paid during the investigation. The agreement also ends a bid by the Arkansas Bar Association to disbar the president.

"It represents the conclusion of the Lewinsky investigation by the office of the independent counsel without the filing of any criminal charges," Siewert said.

Ray agreed that today's agreement brings the three-year investigation to a close.

"The nation's interests have been served, and therefore I decline prosecution," Ray said at a separate news conference. "This matter is now concluded. Let history and the American people judge that is had been concluded fairly."



Parados knows NOTHING about Clinton's true guilt. He is clueless.

Timber, I know you know better than to say that the Plame matter is a nothing. You have read a lot and can imagine the damage of blowing the covers of a covert agent, her cover company, and her drop. God knows what happened to those overseas with whom she associated.

The Clinton associates were convicted of things outside of Starr's investigation.

Clinton was convicted of nothing. The impeachment was an indictment, and he was acquitted in the trial. Thus, the impeachment is a nullity. The other stuff with him is civil, and you don't (with some traffic exceptions) have convictions in civil cases. Look it up.

Incidentally, Clinton was a great president despite the years of persecution that amounted to nothing. The stuff with the women was personal.

Advocate wrote:

Clinton was convicted of nothing. The impeachment was an indictment, and he was acquitted in the trial. Thus, the impeachment is a nullity. The other stuff with him is civil, and you don't (with some traffic exceptions) have convictions in civil cases. Look it up.

*********************************************************

The other stuff with him is civil says the person who never makes a link and tries to convince he is telling the truth> LOL

**********************************************************
Let's look at just how benign the civil and "other stuff" was-- And I, unlike the clueless Advocate will use links---


Of course, It means NOTHING that our chief executive, the person who swore to uphold the laws of the USA was held in contempt of court.

Advocate- the clueless one- said Look it up---I did_ and found the following:



Judge Finds Clinton in Contempt of Court
Judge Susan Webber Wright. (Reuters)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Online Discussion: White House Reporter Peter Baker

Excerpts From Wright's Order

Clinton Won't Seek Recusal of Jones Judge (Washington Post, Feb. 18)

Jones Case Judge May Cite Clinton (Washington Post, Feb. 17)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


By Roberto Suro and Joan Biskupic
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, April 13, 1999; Page A1

A federal judge yesterday held President Clinton in contempt of court for giving "intentionally false" testimony about his relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky in the Paula Jones lawsuit, marking the first time that a sitting president has been sanctioned for disobeying a court order.

In a biting, 32-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright of Arkansas said Clinton gave "false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process" in Jones's sexual harassment lawsuit. She specifically cited Clinton's assertions that he was never alone with Lewinsky and that he did not have a sexual relationship with the former White House intern.

Wright, who personally presided over Clinton's January 1998 deposition in the Jones case, acknowledged that no court had ever taken such action against a president but said it was important to act to "protect the integrity" of the judicial process.

"Sanctions must be imposed, not only to redress the president's misconduct, but to deter others who might themselves consider emulating the president of the United States by engaging in misconduct that undermines the integrity of the judicial system," she wrote.

The White House had no comment on the order yesterday, saying it was under review by the president's private attorneys. Clinton's lawyer in the Jones case, Robert S. Bennett, did not return telephone calls last night. Clinton could appeal the order.

The contempt finding comes two months after the Senate acquitted Clinton on articles of impeachment alleging that he committed perjury in the criminal investigation by independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr that grew out of the Jones civil case. The impeachment articles also alleged that Clinton sought to obstruct justice in the Jones case by arranging a job for Lewinsky and trying to coach other witnesses to testify falsely.

The conduct targeted by Wright concerns a charge approved by the House Judiciary Committee but defeated by the full House as it voted to impeach Clinton: that the president lied under oath in the civil lawsuit.

With the Senate's acquittal, Clinton has sought to put the impeachment proceedings behind him and obtain a measure of vindication. Wright's action yesterday adds the weight of judicial authority to those who contend that Clinton lied under oath and undermines his assertion that he tried to be evasive and misleading, but steered clear of outright lies, in what he thought was a politically inspired lawsuit.

"This is an unfortunate mark against Clinton as a person, because this is a taint on his integrity," said William and Mary law professor Michael Gerhardt, an expert on the impeachment process. "It obviously could have further implications for his legacy. It might have implications for him as a lawyer."

In finding that Clinton deliberately lied in the Jones deposition and his written answers to questions posed by her lawyers, Wright ordered Clinton to pay "any reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees, caused by his willful failure to obey this court's discovery orders." Wright also said Clinton should repay the $1,202 she incurred in traveling to Washington at Clinton's request to oversee the deposition and said she was referring the matter to state judicial authorities in Arkansas who could disbar Clinton for violating the legal profession's rules of conduct.

Jones accused Clinton of sexually harassing her while he was governor of Arkansas and she was a state employee. The judge approved her lawyers' request to question Clinton about his relationships with government workers, including Lewinsky, in an effort to discover whether others had been subjected to similar behavior. Wright subsequently dismissed the case and said yesterday that decision would not have changed if Clinton had told the truth. After Jones appealed the dismissal, Clinton settled the lawsuit for $850,000 last November, just as Congress began impeachment proceedings.

"It's the first time in this whole case that he's been held accountable -- and it's a legal ruling, not a political decision," said John W. Whitehead, president of the Virginia-based Rutherford Institute, which helped finance the Jones lawsuit. "It was an important test of whether we're going to have a rule of law. It was an important ruling."

Wright had the option to order more severe penalties under her civil contempt authority and had the power to summarily find Clinton guilty of criminal contempt.

Jones's lawyers said yesterday that they are satisfied with the finding of civil contempt. "It appears very sound in its analysis and an appropriate response to the president's wrongdoing," said T. Wesley Holmes, a Dallas attorney who was among those representing Jones in the final stages of the lawsuit.

Lanny J. Davis, a former White House special counsel, said Wright's action was "highly irregular" and could be subject to appeal on constitutional grounds because a federal judge lacks the authority to sanction a sitting president.

Wright said in her ruling that she had considered the issue and decided that she had the authority to issue civil contempt sanctions under the reasoning of the Supreme Court's ruling, in Jones v. Clinton, that a sitting president could be subjected to a civil lawsuit involving his conduct before taking office.

"Certainly the court recognizes," Wright said, "that significant constitutional issues would arise were this court to impose sanctions against the president that impaired his decision-making or otherwise impaired him in the performance of his official duties. No such sanctions will be imposed, however."

Rory K. Little, a law professor at the University of California at Hastings, said Wright's action is "completely standard. . . . Contempt is always within a judge's powers. Once the president could be hauled into court [because of the Supreme Court ruling], he had to obey the rules."

Wright, who acted on her own initiative, said she deferred to the impeachment proceedings and waited for them to be completed before addressing the contempt issue.

She also emphasized important distinctions between the two proceedings. While impeachment is "a constitutional process in which the proper inquiry is the president's fitness to serve in office," she said, a judge's contempt authority "protects the integrity of a court's proceedings and provides a means of enforcement of its orders."

"The court takes no pleasure whatsoever in holding this nation's president in contempt of court," Wright said. However, Wright warned the president that if he challenged any aspect of the contempt order he would not be able to avoid the "turmoil of evidentiary hearings" and that such hearings would involve "all matters concerning the president's conduct in this lawsuit which may warrant a finding of civil contempt."

In yesterday's order, Wright said she only addressed matters that "no reasonable person would seriously dispute were in violation of this court's discovery order" and that required no further exploration with fresh evidence or testimony.

She cited Clinton's response to questions by Jones's lawyers during his deposition on Jan. 17, 1998, when he said he did not remember ever being alone with Lewinsky and claimed, "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky," the former White House and Pentagon staff member. In his testimony before the Starr grand jury on Aug. 17, he stated that he had been alone with her "from time to time" and acknowledged an "inappropriate intimate relationship" with Lewinsky.

Wright said there was no need to "engage in extended analysis" of Clinton's statements to determine that his deposition testimony was "intentionally false" and thus liable to the sanction of civil contempt.

Jesse Choper, law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, said, "There are probably relatively few members of the public who don't feel that he lied. This would just say that [Wright] called him on it."


AND

Sure- The information below is NOTHING. Why, Presidents of the United States have their law licenses suspended all the time and they reallly don't mind it if they have to pay a $25,000 fine--They really don't!!!

Note-

Court
Clinton Disbarred From Supreme Court
By Anne Gearan

Associated Press Writer

Monday, Oct. 1, 2001; 10:48 a.m. EDT

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ordered former President Clinton disbarred from practicing law before the high court on Monday and gave him 40 days to contest the order.

The court did not explain its reasons, but Supreme Court disbarment often follows disbarment in lower courts.

In April, Clinton's Arkansas law license was suspended for five years and he paid a $25,000 fine. The original disbarment lawsuit was brought by a committee of the Arkansas Supreme Court.

There are no fines associated with the Supreme Court action. Most lawyers who are admitted to the Supreme Court bar never actually argue a case there, but the right to do so is considered an honor.

Clinton agreed to the Arkansas fine and suspension Jan. 19, the day before he left office, as part of an understanding with Independent Counsel Robert Ray to end the Monica Lewinsky investigation.

The agreement also satisfied the legal effort by the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct to disbar Clinton for giving misleading testimony in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case.

The Supreme Court followed its standard rules in the Clinton case, which include suspending Clinton from practice in the court and giving him 40 day to show why he should not be permanently disbarred.

The court order did not mention any vote by the justices.

"Whenever a member of the bar of this court has been disbarred or suspended from practice of any court of record, or has engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the bar of this court, the court will enter an order suspending that member from practice before this court," Supreme Court rules say.

Julia Payne, a spokeswoman for Clinton, referred calls to his lawyer, David Kendall, in Washington. Kendall did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

and

the unkindest cut of all- SCUMBAG CLINTON ADMITS HE WAS A LIAR__




TRANSITION IN WASHINGTON: THE PRESIDENT; Exiting Job, Clinton Accepts Immunity Deal
By NEIL A. LEWIS
Pres Clinton, on last full day in office, agrees to settlement in which he will avoid possibility of indictment in exchange for admitting he gave false testimony under oath and agreeing to surrender his law license for five years; deal with special prosecutor Robert W Ray is stunning end to long melodrama and pitched legal battles over Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky; also ends any criminal liability in Whitewater case and concludes $60-million investigation that plagued Clintons for much of their time in White House; Clinton explicitly admits that 'certain of my responses' were false when he gave 1998 deposition about Lewinsky in Paula Jones sexual misconduct suit; will pay $25,000 fine to Arkansas Bar Assn and promises not to seek reimbursement of legal fees from federal court, as he would be entitled to do as person investigated but not indicted; statement ending weeks of negotiationsis read at White House; Clinton is described as relieved but unhappy that last day in office is marked again by scandal; attorney David Kendall says president is glad to have 'closure'; photos; Ray reportedly did not want to leave issue, and pardon question, to incoming president George W Bush

January 20, 2001 Front Page News

Advocate is incredibly IGNORANT of the facts!

FindLaw | For Legal Professionals | For Corporate Counsel | For Law Students
Register/login to My FindLaw
My current location: -, - | Change Location

Home Practice Areas Jurisdictions Cases & Codes News CLE Market Center Research a Lawyer
Federal Law | State Law | Case Summaries Search | U.S. Code | Supreme Court Cases




Search the Legal Dictionary


conviction

1: the act or process of convicting

also
: the final judgment entered after a finding of guilt
Example: a prior conviction of murder
Example: would not overturn the conviction
(compare acquittal)
Note: Jurisdictions differ as to what constitutes conviction for various statutes (as habitual offender statutes). Conviction is rarely applied to civil cases.

2: "guilt"
Example: the judge will enter a judgment of conviction -- W. R. LaFave and J. H. Israel

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996.
Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.
Published under license with Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.



Note the statement that "Conviction is rarely applied to civil cases." Bernard, are you ever correct?

Did you read the word conviction in my post, Oh ignorant one?


Here is what you read if you know how to read.

1. Clinton found in CONTEMPT OF COURT BY JUDGE WRIGHT

2. Clinton's law license suspended for five years

3. Clinton pays $25,000 fine to Arkansas Law Group

4. Clinton admits lying and, a new one for you, O ignorant one--

5. Clinton SETTLED THE JONES CASE WITH A PAYMENT OF $850,000.


Clinton fine ends disbarment case, LR [LITTLE ROCK] lawyer says (CLINTON FINALLY PAYS FINE)

Crime/Corruption News Keywords: CLINTON PAYS $25,000 FINE IN ARKANSAS DISBARMENT CASE
Source: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
Published: Apr. 7, 2001 Author: Traci Shurley
Posted on 04/07/2001 07:26:47 PDT by aristeides
Clinton fine ends disbarment case, LR lawyer says

TRACI SHURLEY
ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE

The attorney chosen to pursue the disbarment of former President Bill Clinton said Friday that she considers the case "completed" with Clinton's recent payment of a $25,000 fine.

Marie-Bernarde Miller, the Little Rock lawyer who represented the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct in the Clinton disbarment case, said her office received a personal check from Clinton for $25,000 on March 21. The fine and a five-year suspension of Clinton's law license resulted from an agreement between the committee and Clinton.

The money was intended to cover the committee's cost to hire outside counsel in the case. Professional conduct committee attorney Lynn Williams also represented the committee.

"The case is completed," Miller said. "I think the outcome was a very good resolution of this case. The penalty that the President received -- a five-year suspension to take effect while he was a sitting president and a $25,000 fine -- was, I think, an acceptable penalty."

Clinton reached nearly simultaneous agreements with the Arkansas Supreme Court's conduct committee and independent counsel Robert Ray on Jan. 19, his last full day as president. Those agreements kept him from being disbarred or from being prosecuted regarding his testimony in the Paula Corbin Jones sexual harassment case.

The Committee on Professional Conduct filed the lawsuit seeking Clinton's disbarment June 30 in Pulaski County Circuit Court. The case was originally assigned to Circuit Judge Leon Johnson and later to Circuit Judge Willard Proctor Jr. after Johnson's appointed term ran out Jan. 1.

The basis of the complaint was an April 12, 1999, opinion by Chief U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright that found Clinton gave misleading and evasive answers to Jones' attorneys during a Jan. 17, 1998, deposition.

Clinton settled the case with Jones for $850,000 in 1998 after Jones appealed a dismissal of her case by Wright.

Clinton, who was accused of "serious misconduct" by the conduct committee, admitted as part of the consent agreement with the committee that he violated rule 8.4 (d) of the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct. That rule, according to the consent order signed by Proctor, states that it is professional misconduct for any lawyer to "engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice."

Clinton admitted in the order that he "knowingly gave evasive and misleading answers ... in an attempt to conceal from plaintiff Jones' lawyers the true facts about his improper relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, which had ended almost a year earlier."

Lawyers in the Jones case questioned Clinton about his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Clinton later admitted having "inappropriate intimate contact" with her.

Williams, who was unavailable Friday afternoon, said that after the deal with Clinton was struck in January, the committee had allowed Clinton "some time" to pay the $25,000 fine. Neither Williams nor Stephen Engstrom, Clinton's Little Rock attorney, would elaborate on the reason for the delay.

Engstrom was unavailable for comment late Friday afternoon.

Miller said she has submitted a bill to the conduct committee for her work in the Clinton case. Though she could not recall the exact amount of her fees, she said the fine paid by Clinton to offset those costs is adequate.

"I can't remember [the amount]. It's something that is done by our office personnel," she said.

Clinton was admitted to the Arkansas bar on Sept. 7, 1973. In June 1990, he requested that his law license be placed on inactive status for continuing legal education purposes.

Bernard, to summarize, Clinton was the biggest deadbeat ever to inhabit the Whitehouse. The only things he did worthwhile were welfare reform and virtually balancing the budget, both of which credit goes to the Republican Congress, not Clinton. He was a complete disaster, and he wasted 8 years of doing nothing about terrorists. Spending company time chasing interns less than half his age around our house on our nickel is not a private matter. How many other presidents were accused of rape how many times? When Democrats started accusing Republicans of a culture of corruption, give me a break, the party that protected the most corrupt president of all time for 8 years. Clinton, the friend of Indonesian mafia, the taker of Chinese money for technology, the man that pardoned terrorists, need we list all the scandals, propped up by the most corrupt party of all time, the Democratic Party. An absolute total deadbeat, Bernard. No wonder Kofi Annan loves the man. The man never had a real job outside of government. No wonder he knew nothing about anything pertinent. And now he jetsets around the world acting important and chasing skirts. He is an embarrassment to the country........along with Jimmy Carter. Bernard, I am just now coming to the full realization how detrimental Jimmy Carter was and still is. I cannot believe what the man is doing and saying these days.

And as far as Fitzgerald, enough is enough, where is the media complaining about all the money being spent on a crime that wasn't a crime? Remember the drumbeat about the money being spent by Ken Starr? And Starr was the most evil, the most dumb, the most partisan investigator of all time according to the Democrats. Yes I remember that all clearly. Where is the media this time around, Bernard, to ask these questions of Fitzgerald? I think Fitzgerald has alot of explaining to do as to why he has spent all this time investigating a crime that is yet to be determined to be a crime. All I can say is, do something Fitzgerald, something, anything......

The amazing thing is that Clinton was such a great president in the face of all the time lost due to the 5 years of Republican persecution.

One of the big differences is that Fitz is strict about not talking to the media, which is directly opposite of the Starr investigation; that guy leaked like a seive.

So there isn't any story moving forward for the media. There's no new news to talk about, so the investigation doesn't come under constant media attention the way the Clinton investigation did. Also, it isn't about sex, so it simply doesn't garner as high ratings on TV; the Plame game is complicated, the laws behind it are complicated, so it takes a lot of time to understand for the average viewer. Contrast that to infidelity, which everyone understands.

Cycloptichorn

And unless Fitzgerald indicts another Administration official, I win our little bet, don't I Cyclops?

Yes, you would win the bet if no other indictment occurs from the investigation; which is why I'm glad that it hasn't concluded yet!

If the investigation goes past the term of Bush, I claim that then-former officials count towards the bet.

Cycloptichorn

The expenditures and time spent on this is public record, cyclops. I say again, where is the curiosity and where are the hit pieces by the media?

I don't think the Plame game is complicated. There are 2 or 3 laws in regard to this, and there is a record of what happened. It is simple to explain. The media simply does not wish to explain it because the details do not spin in the direction they care to spin it.

To correct the record, cyclops, there was more than infidelity involved with Clinton. It was called Whitewater, wherein the scandal went in all directions. People were convicted of crimes. And do you honestly believe if Bush had an equivalent Monica Lewinsky, would the man last a month in office? I seriously doubt it. Then add credible rape charges from a few women accusing Bush. There would not be enough ink to print all the stories, and there would not be enough investigative reporters, not enough hours in the day on tv and all the rest to cover the stories. Bush would be gone, gone, gone, in a heartbeat, back to his ranch in Texas clearing brush. You libs are so transparent and such hypocrits.

Hahah, I'm telling you, they don't have anything to report!

Fitz won't talk, his office doesn't leak, and there isn't much activity in the case as the Libby case moves towards trial; what 'hit pieces' are there to report?



As do I. But this has more to do with the 'moral high ground' claimed by Bush than anything else. That and the fact that his own party would be forced to turn against him.

Cycloptichorn

No crimes were found in the Whitewater investigation, which cost at least $100 M. How much has Fitz's investigation cost. I wager that it has been a small fraction of the $100 M amount.

Married men do lie about affairs. Big deal! And, Fox, there were no credible rape charges. The woman who said she was raped never mentioned it for 20 years, and never complained to the police.

But you miss the point, Timber. Starr strayed far afield from his original charge. Fitzgerald has stayed focused. Fitzerald's indictment has come directly from false testimony concerning what he was charged to investigate. Libby lied about what he told reporters and when. That is central to the case of whether it was a crime when people revealed Plame's name to reporters. I don't see how you can reasonably argue it has nothing to do with it. None of Starr's indictments had anything to do with whitewater or Monica Lewinski, the 2 things he was given by the judges to investigate.
No, they weren't components of the Starr investigation of whitewater. Their crimes had nothing to do with whitewater.
my mistake, I missed "acquital"

You presume much here - to this point, there is allegation and indictment, not trial and conviction. Further, in the matter of the Plame Game, to this point no finding of criminality has been made whatsoever, no individual apart from Libby is under indictment, and there is no indication additional indictments will follow, irrespective of whether pertaining to Libby or to others.


That is absolute nonsense. That the Clintons managed to avoid indictment is immaterial to the facts that the Whitewater investigation turned up criminal activity, including fraud, conspiracy, tax evasion, and other fiduciary malfeasance by (among others) Whitewater principals, involving (again among others) the Castle Grande scheme, the failed Madison Guaranty, and the Federal Resolution Trust Corporation, indictments ensued, and both plea agreements and convictions were obtained. When the investigation was closed, its 3rd and final prosecutor (Ray, after Fiske then Starr) stated in his final report not that the Clintons had been cleared, but that there was insufficient evidence to warrant prosecution (a little thing, of course but a thing, none the less). Here - refresh your memory.


No problem - its a little thing, of course, but then, sometimes its the little things that getchya :wink:


Well, that's sure to come as good news and great comfort to those who who wound up sentenced outta the deal - most of 'em anyhow, if you figure dying while behind bars put Jim McDougal beyond comfort.


CBS: Whitewater Investigation Cost "More than $50M"

International Herald-Tribune: Whitewater Investigation Cost "More than $50M"

Grolier (The American Presidents Series): Whitewater Investigation Cost " ... estimated at $64 million"


USA Today: Whitewater Investigation Cost "$70M"


OIC Final Report: Whitewater Investigation Cost "$59,463,703.00"

OK, Advocate - $100M? Whadjya do with the resta the money? C'mon, now ... fork it over


Safe bet - I believe that currently Fitzgerald's expenditure totals something on the order of a Million all told. Is he not investigating as aggresively as did the Whitewater crew, or is he just not finding as much to investigate?


Straw man; the issue is not what he lied about, or why, but that he lied while testifying under oath in a matter at federal investigation. That, by definition, is a "Big Deal", a Federal Offense type of deal, and it is THE DEAL, period.

Anyhow, enough of Slick Willie and The Hildebeast - lets see whats going on with the Plame Game ...

Hmmmmm ... Not exctly a point scored by Joe and Val

... which is exactly what Libby is accused of as well; so, that must be at least a medium deal.

Cycloptichorn

No argument there - IF Libby is convicted or plea bargains out. Thats a pretty big "IF".