But legal experts point out that perjury, even in
regard to adultery, is a felony and felons are not permitted to
hold public office.
Experts see Clinton's hand
weakened
By Bill Sammon
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
President Clinton may be hard pressed to escape at least
one accusation of perjury now that Monica Lewinsky is
willing to testify that she had a sexual relationship with him.
Clinton supporters have attempted to downplay the
significance of whether he perjured himself by saying it's "just
about sex." But legal experts point out that perjury, even in
regard to adultery, is a felony and felons are not permitted to
hold public office.
"There is certainly an effort to portray this investigation as
an effort to prove adultery, as opposed to perjury," said
Jonathan Turley, law professor at George Washington
University. "The president would not be impeached due to any
act of adultery. Any adultery committed by the president is
strictly a matter between the president and the first lady.
"But any perjury committed by the president is strictly a
matter between the president and the public. It is difficult to
understand how a principled argument can be made that a
perjurer could remain in office."
The former White House intern's decision to cooperate with
independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr not only makes perjury
charges against Mr. Clinton more likely, it also strengthens Mr.
Starr's hand in his pursuit of charges such as obstruction of
justice, suborning perjury and
-- Continued from Front Page --
tampering with witnesses, which are more difficult to prove.
The president -- who has been subpoenaed by Mr. Starr
and is negotiating for an acceptable forum in which to give his
testimony -- has testified under oath that he did not have sex
with Miss Lewinsky. If he sticks to his story, Mr. Starr would
be forced to break a "he-said-she-said" deadlock by
producing evidence -- such as testimony from Lewinsky
confidants and gifts that she and the president exchanged -- in
an effort to show the president is lying.
The burden of proof, which is normally a well-established
threshold in criminal proceedings, would be harder to predict in
the House of Representatives, which is expected to receive any
Starr report on evidence of wrongdoing by Mr. Clinton. Since
some House members are expected to vote along party lines
regardless of evidence, the persuasiveness of Mr. Starr's case
is particularly important in determining whether a majority of
House members would vote to impeach Mr. Clinton.
Furthermore, it is unlikely that Mr. Starr, at the end of his
long investigation, would accuse Mr. Clinton of just one count
of perjury, according to Mark Levin, director of Landmark
Legal Foundation.
"We fall into this trap of simply narrowing the issue to what
the White House says it is, which is essentially one possible
instance of perjury," Mr. Levin said. "The problem is what's
being investigated here is serial perjury. Perjury about Kathleen
Willey, about Gennifer Flowers, about Lewinsky, about
Lewinsky's gifts being returned, about a job for Lewinsky, and
on and on.
"People usually perjure themselves for a reason and that
reason is usually to cover up something -- that is, to obstruct an
investigation. So typically, in a case like this, if you have one or
more perjury counts, you trigger conspiracy and obstruction.
On top of that, we have the possibility in this case of witness
tampering.
"So we're not talking about one possible instance of
perjury," Mr. Levin said. "We're talking about a whole web of
criminal issues."
Rep. Bob Barr, Georgia Republican, agreed.
"It's not about sex, it's about several potential felonies," said
Mr. Barr, a member of the House Judiciary Committee. "One
would certainly hope that our standards of public service would
not have fallen so low that it's OK to have a person who
commits felonies sitting in the Oval Office. I cannot imagine that
would be the standard that would prevail in the Judiciary
Committee, if the evidence shows that."
Miss Lewinsky now appears to be willing to discuss not
only her sexual relationship with Mr. Clinton, but efforts to
keep her quiet about it. Before yesterday, Miss Lewinsky had
been willing to acknowledge an 18-month affair, but was
reluctant to tell Mr. Starr about possible obstruction of justice.
She apparently changed her mind after Mr. Starr dropped his
insistence that she plead guilty to some crime as part of any
deal.
Miss Lewinsky's change of heart increases Mr. Clinton's
legal and political peril and makes impeachment proceedings
more likely. But it is only one of many setbacks to Mr. Clinton
in recent days. Others include his failure to prevent White
House lawyers and Secret Service officials from testifying
before the grand jury.
"These latest developments are not one small step for man
-- they're a giant leap for the independent counsel," Mr. Barr
said. "This portends very bad things for the president and his
troops and increases the likelihood substantially that we will be
called on in the Judiciary Committee relatively soon to consider
a report from Mr. Starr."
Mr. Turley agreed.
"It's remarkable how bad a week the president is having,
and this is only Tuesday," Mr. Turley said yesterday. "The
president is fast running out of options. He is increasingly
isolated in this matter.
"Thank God for Buddy. It was no accident that the
president chose the most loyal breed [of dog] in Buddy."
washtimes.com |
