From: Petro <petro@playboy.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:15:15 +0800
To: declan@well.com
Subject: Re: Clinton's fake apologies
In-Reply-To: <199809121549.IAA28683@zendia.mentat.com>
Message-ID: <v03110709b222df0b20fe@[206.189.103.244]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 10:49 AM -0500 9/12/98, Jim Gillogly wrote:
>Declan wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Sep 1998, Jim Gillogly wrote:
>> >
>> > If they <do> decide this is now a requirement for high office, I'd like
>> > to see all the Congresscritters who've had sex out of wedlock and
>> > concealed it take one step forward.  Shall we make hypocrisy in high
>> > office impeachable also?
>>
>> A better question is: If Clinton is guilty of perjury and other felonies,
>> should he be impeached?
>
>IANAL (feel free to weigh in here, Unicorn), but I heard on one show or
>another that lying under oath is perjury only if it's material to the
>suit.  Since the Jones case was dismissed, it was argued that even if he
>lied then, it wasn't material and thus wasn't perjury -- they claimed that
>nobody had every been convicted of perjury for lying in a case that was
>dismissed.  Of course he's saying he didn't even lie: like Kinky Friedman

	Whether anyone was convicted or not, he still LIED UNDER OATH
(Allegedly, allegedly allegedly). It doesn't matter whether the case was
dismissed or not.

>In any case, despite these legalisms, I'm not convinced that perjury in
>any case should be considered treason or high crimes and misdemeanors.

	He VIOLATED HIS OATH OF OFFICE.

>The Founding Fathers could have been more specific about what was
>impeachable, and they chose not to be, leaving it intentionally ambiguous.
>
>Despite those arguments, this stuff really isn't about perjury: it's about
>the Republicans' case of nixon envy... Clinton's peccadillos are a far cry
>from Watergate (or Teapot Dome or Iran-Contra), but it's the best chance
>they've had since the Crook was dumped.

	Yeah, Nixon only worked to conceal the actions of others,
attempting to protect himself, and the people who worked for him. He did
this concerning a crime he did not know was going to be committed.

	Clinton on the other hand LIED UNDER OATH about something HE DID,
lied to PROTECT HIMSELF, and ONLY HIMSELF. At least Nixon worried about
more than his historical legacy, and his wee-willy.

>> If you don't think about lying about sex and related issues under oath
>> should be a crime, well, then change the law. But right now any form of
>> lying under oath is perjury, whether you like it or not.
>If he did commit perjury, would that be an impeachable offense?  I claim
>it's up to the House to interpret just what constitutes high crimes and
>misdemeanors, since it isn't spelled out in the Constitution.
>
>Disclaimer -- I'm not a Democrat, and I'm annoyed with Clinton's behavior
>on crypto issues.  If I appear to be defending him, it's inadvertant -- I
>just feel he should be attacked on material points rather than whatever
>sleazy stuff Starr has found under his rocks.

	As it's been said before, if he'll lie UNDER OATH about this, what
about other things?

--
petro@playboy.com----for work related issues. I don't speak for Playboy.
petro@bounty.org-----for everthing else.      They wouldn't like that.
                                              They REALLY
Economic speech IS political speech.          wouldn't like that.