That is an important distinction, and although I think there were some extenuating circumstances I agree that Clinton should not have committed perjury.
Nevertheless, fast-talking congress with doctored evidence to spend billions and risk soldiers' lives on an unjustified invasion does represent a distinct crime - fraud, on a grand scale. Given the situations, I'd say it's a far worse crime than perjury, and certainly as damning of the administration's honesty.
I'm not a lawyer, but I seem to recall from the few law classes I did have in university that fraud had a very specific legal definition. It has six elements, and all six must be established for fraud to exist. Specifically, I recall it as "Misrepresentation of a material fact with knowledge of it's falsity and intent to deceive which brings about a reasonable reliance and damages."
While I think some of those are more clear than others, I'd be surprised if one could prove that he had knowledge of the falsity of his assertions given the paper trail of 'flawed' intelligence reports. Without that, it isn't fraud. I'm not saying what he did wasn't wrong. I'm just not convinced he violated any laws in doing it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Nevertheless, fast-talking congress with doctored evidence to spend billions and risk soldiers' lives on an unjustified invasion does represent a distinct crime - fraud, on a grand scale. Given the situations, I'd say it's a far worse crime than perjury, and certainly as damning of the administration's honesty.
no subject
While I think some of those are more clear than others, I'd be surprised if one could prove that he had knowledge of the falsity of his assertions given the paper trail of 'flawed' intelligence reports. Without that, it isn't fraud. I'm not saying what he did wasn't wrong. I'm just not convinced he violated any laws in doing it.