New York Times Lead Editorial
...The other will play out in Congress, where Mr. Starr's strict theory of
what constitutes perjury will collide with the implausibly permissive interpretations of Mr. Clinton's lawyer, David Kendall.
The essence of Mr. Starr's case is that lying under oath is an impeachable offense even if the false testimony begins in a civil suit that was later dismissed or took place in a grand jury as an attempt to hide an embarrassing indiscretion. Mr. Starr's view holds that in a society founded on the rule of law, false swearing or witness tampering, abuse of office or obstruction of justice by the person vested with the highest legal powers is impermissible no matter how petty the subject.
This page has long held a similar view of the sanctity of law, but we grant that the magnitude, complexity and, yes, the oddness of this case require deep deliberation. The allegations of the Starr report, even though intricately documented and even though Mr. Clinton has admitted to some of the main points, must be tested thoroughly. Moreover, Congress must reach a judgment about Mr. Starr's argument that Presidential perjury or obstruction of justice in any context rises to the level of
constitutional punishment.
The White House argues that Mr. Clinton's "private mistake does not amount to an impeachable action" and that in referring to the "high crimes and misdemeanors" that could remove a President, the framers of the Constitution "meant wrongs committed against our system of government." Mr. Kendall does this argument no service, however, when he insults the nation's intelligence by insisting that the President did not lie when he denied having sex with Monica Lewinsky during his deposition in the Paula Corbin Jones suit and, more seriously, repeated that denial before the grand jury itself on Aug. 17. In framing the question in the Jones case, Mr. Clinton's interrogators specified exactly the kinds of intimate activity that Ms. Lewinsky described under oath.
By relying on this kind of destructive legal counsel from Mr. Kendall for so long, Mr. Clinton has managed to create one of the most disastrous personal situations in the history of the Presidency...
nytimes.com
Impeachment for lying under oath does not have to meet the strict legal definition of perjury, though few doubt that Clinton committed perjury. |
