loquitur

Rekna, that's true of part but not all as to Clinton. Clinton's problems came initially from his deception in his deposition in the Paula Jones civil case. The rest of the stuff mushroomed out of that. OoJ, of course, sort of requires that there be an investigation, so yes, that piece of it and part of the lying charges came out of the investigation rather than out of independently existing conduct. It's kinda interesting: my law partner opined back then that Clinton should have just defaulted in the Jones case and then had a trial about damages (on the theory that there weren't any). That way he would not have had to testify and all this stuff would never have come up.

dc_dux, those sections of the indictment don't say she was undercover overseas during that time, only that her "employement status" was classified. Do you know what that means? I don't. I doubt it means that the fact she worked at the CIA was secret, because she drove her car openly to and from Langley every day. I suspect it means that <i>what her specific duties were at the CIA</i> were classified.

Classification rules are a bit different from "blowing cover", and - as you know - they are routinely disregarded by pretty much everyone: we wouldn't have much news reporting otherwise. But even taking the classification rules at face value, bear in mind that her status was disclosed by Armitage initially.

This does get hard to keep track of after a while. So far, what I see is that there is massive "he said-she said" going on here. I think I mentioned I'm a lawyer, so I find "he said-she said" stuff to be fairly unpersuasive, though if that is all we have to go on in a particular case, we have to make the best of it. Most cases involving organizations aren't like that because people write stuff down. Contemporaneous documents are the most persuasive evidence we have.