From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 12:53:22 +0800
To: Jim Gillogly <jimg@mentat.com>
Subject: Re: Clinton's fake apologies
In-Reply-To: <199809121549.IAA28683@zendia.mentat.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.980912105356.24790A-100000@well.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



1. it's tough to argue that clinton's apparent perjury in Jones was
immaterial

2. i know of no law saying perjury only a crime if it's "material"

3. perjury is certainly one of the "great offenses" that common law says
is impeachable.

4. besides, non-criminal activities can constitute impeachable offenses --
look at second and third articles of impeachment in Nixon's case

-Declan


On Sat, 12 Sep 1998, 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
> 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 
> 
>