Skip to comments.Clinton breaks deal with prosecutor - Now says charges against him as president were false
Posted on 06/02/2005 4:28:29 PM PDT by CHARLITE
President Bill Clinton told NBC's Brian Williams tonight charges brought against him by the House of Representatives were false, contradicting a plea bargain deal he made with Independent Counsel Robert Ray that he admit he gave false testimony under oath to a federal grand jury.
In a blistering attack on Ray's predecessor, Kenneth Starr, Clinton accused the independent counsel of persecuting innocent people, indicting them because they wouldn't lie and assaulting the Constitution.
"I was acquitted," he told Williams. "And ... the charges that the House sent to the Senate were false. So I did a bad thing. I made a bad personal mistake. I paid a big price for it. But I was acquitted because the charges were false."
There was no follow-up by Williams.
The articles of impeachment passed by the House in 1998 included the accusation that he lied under oath. Yet, Clinton admitted Jan. 19, 2001, as part of his deal with Ray, he had lied under oath while testifying about his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
"I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely," he said in a written statement. "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.
Liar, liar, pants on fire.
What a dork.
To paraphrase an old Washington line: "Have you no shame, sir?"
President Clinton and Independent Counsel Robert Ray agreed Friday to settle the seven-year Whitewater probe. The president admitted that he gave misleading testimony in the 1998 Paula Jones case about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, accepted a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license, and promised to cover $25,000 in legal fees related to disbarment proceedings against him in Arkansas. In exchange, Ray agreed not to indict Clinton on perjury charges. What kind of agreement is this?
It's not your everyday legal agreement. It's not a declination, in which a prosecutor drops a criminal investigation because the case isn't solid enough to indict. Nor is it a plea bargain, in which a prosecutor accepts a guilty plea from the indicted in exchange for a lenient sentence (because, of course Clinton was never indicted). Nor is it a referral of a criminal case to civil authorities for resolution (such as when a criminal antitrust case is referred to civil prosecutors). The most unusual aspect of the deal is that Clinton reached a civil resolution with a criminal prosecutor.
Independent counsel Robert Ray's non-plea plea bargain with President Clinton may be a salutary contribution to decriminalizing our politics. Never mind that it was completely unconstitutional.
The substance of the plea bargain, in broad outline, seems fair enough. Ray agreed to decline prosecution "with prejudice" in effect forever immunizing Clinton from any Lewinsky-related federal criminal liability. In exchange, Clinton agreed to give up his Arkansas law license for five years and to pay yet another fine, and finally admitted that he "knowingly violated" judicial orders with deposition answers that were "evasive" and "misleading" and attimes downright "false." Better still would have been a forthright admission in person, and not just on paper that "I lied." Clinton's lies were brazen, yet his confession was not equally blunt. He lied with his own lips, and it would have been better for him to confess in the same way, righting his earlier wrong in the most symmetrical way. Instead, Clinton's legalistic "confession" was read aloud by a press secretary. I confess he did it. Mistakes were made.
"President Bill Clinton told NBC's Brian Williams tonight charges brought against him by the House of Representatives were false"
...and monkeys might fly out his a$$ too.
Dean: Well, a Democratic socialist--all right, we're talking about words here. And Bernie can call himself anything he wants. He is basically a liberal Democrat
Granted he was talking about one specific, self proclaimed 'Democratic Socialist'. But, I think my tagline is still appropriate. Also note Taranto's comment in the post linked above.
Wussies yes but I also believe that by removing Klintoon from office it would have made Al Bore President thereby giving him a stronger chance of defeating the repub nominee. (Refresh my memory, was Bush the repub nominee prior to or after the impeachment?)
Thanks, I forgot about that.
Go away. Please, go away.
He was aquitted because trent lott is a spineless knee pad wearing sissy sub boy.
Cheerleader lott now has his tutu all in a dither, thinking he is going to get to be head "bitch" again.
and planted tulips on clintoon's cheek...
Sounds like rapistX42 has been taking lessons from sKerry.
Yes, it would seem that if he is going to break the deal then it is null and void. They should release the records.
He is an IMPEACHED President and will Forever Be.
The Senate didn't Acquit him,they voted to not remove him from office.
Of course not.
There won't be one from Bush, either.
The Clintons are a gathering storm.
Anyone who is surprised by this stuff, and wall to wall Clinton on the rise. needs a reality check.