From: jimg@mentat.com (Jim Gillogly)
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 10:49:06 +0800
To: declan@well.com
Subject: Re: Clinton's fake apologies
Message-ID: <199809121549.IAA28683@zendia.mentat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



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
and the Texas Jewboys, as espoused in their legal treatise "Waitret, please
waitret, come sit on my face", he believes that "Eatin' ain't cheatin'."
YMMV.

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

> 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.

	Jim