BB: But, as I understand it, there was no "outing" as the time limit had passed.

Ahhh, so it's OK then, eh? We won't let any sense of morality intrude on the "letter of the law", eh? When we're past the SOL, we're just SOL?

Funny sense of morality you have.

But the additional problem you have is that the CIA made the referral about the outing, so they didn't think it was so passe....

Impeached he was - that means brought to trial.

He was let off with a slap on the wrist.

Actually, acquitted (in the words of Rehnquist, who must have choked a little: "Not guilty!") on the impeachment articles. And the special prosecutor let him go with the "slap on the wrist" mainly because he wouldn't have gotten anything had he decided to actually bring it to a criminal court (for reasons stated above).

EXCEPT that the investigation was about Slick Willy's SEXUAL attacks on others, NOT about " the repute of the country or the effectiveness of its management" Seem relevent given the investigation.

See FRE Rules 412-415. And do use the word "alleged" there. Jones's case was dismissed by Wright on summary judgement ... after she'd ruled all of the Lewinsky stuff would be excluded (partly for the reasons I mentioned above). A summary judgement means that even if all the facts were indeed as Jones alleged she had no legal claim. Which means no "sexual attack[]".

"IIRC, there is actually nothing illegal about spouting falsehoods in a court of law if they are not germane to the purposes and principles of the case."

I will remember this- IF any Republican is brought to trial for any reason, he gets to decide what requires him to speak truthfully.

YANAL (and AAMOF, IANALE). But a pretty much undisputed fact is that it is a matter for the court to decide whether the facts are material (more specifically, materiality being one of three essential elements of the charge, it is a matter for a jury to decide; see, e.g., Gaudin v. U.S.). That being said, no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case where the established law and the facts are such that a jury wouldn't find materiality; you do have to assume that juries will in fact follow law.

At issue is whether or not Clinton committed perjury when he gave a sworn deposition to the Paula Jones grand jury that he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, the former White House intern.

No freakin' grand jury! Do try to talk in something resembling facts. And FWIW, the question about "sexual relations" came after the judge had narrowed the definition (at the request of Clinton's lawyer) in a somewhat strange fashion that made the definition somewat asymmetrical WRT who di what to who. Regardless, whether Clinton's sexual activities of any> kind with Monica were in any way relevant or admissible in the Jones case is far from clear (and Judge Wright ended up tossing it).

NOTE Scooter HAS NOT been charged with "outing" anyone- just lying to a grand jury. For which, if guilty, he should go to jail.

Note: Both Scooter and Rove did out PLame, both by their own testimony and other evidence (notes, testimony of others, etc.). That's established fact, so don't try to pretend it didn't happen. If others did the same thing (can we say "Cheney"?), it doesn't make their actions any the less wrong. In fact, the more people outing Plame, the more it looks to be a conspiracy, and the more deliberate and the more illegal it is.

Given the work relationship between the two individuals, it was harassment, according to the Federal rules.

Making shite up again? Sure makes the job or "arguing" easier when you can manufacture "facts" to "pprove" your points...

BTW, Bruce, repetition doesn't make anything any the more true (much as the maladministration would like to think so).

Deda Sez: Why should Woodward's prior knowledge of Plame's identity blow Scooter's indictment away? The fact remains that her ID was still generally a SECRET, unknown to her own family members and friends, and certainly unknown to the general public or the broader press at large. The fact that Woodward knew it didn't make it general knowledge -

Not to mention the fact that committing three murders doesn't exculpate you from the first (or second or third). It's the same crime committed multiple times! Not that this obvious logic would seep into the minds of the RW apologists, desperate to come up with anything sounding marginally plausible to defend the maladministration....

Back to BB's babble: Clinton's peni$! Clinton's peni$! Hey, lookie over there, it's *GAWD* Clinton's peni$!!!

Yeah, yeah, yeah, Bruce.....

Cheers,