Its clear that there is very little evidence and lot of fluff. Clinton already admitted to having an affair.
No, he's said that he had an "inappropriate relationship" but that his testimony that they did not have a "sexual relationship" is "legally accurate." This is VERY, VERY different from admitting to an affair. This is why all the sexual details were in the report, to show Clinton lied in this regard.
I suggest that if you are not a lawyer, dont make stupid comments as to what is evidence.
Where did you get your Juris Doctorate?
Remember they may have been alone, that does not mean they did what Monica said they did.
In Clinton's deposition he stated that he could not recall if he was ever alone with Lewinsky. This particular perjury charge is the one that they have him dead to rights on. This is probably the strongest, most provable charge in the entire Starr case as they have both his testimony and Monica's, giving them the two witnesses they need.
Further people say perjury is the same thing as lying under oath. They are VERY VERY different.
What's your definition of perjury Stockman, J.D.?
First a simple definition:
lateraltech.com
Perjury
An intentional lie given while under oath or in a sworn affidavit.
and a much more involved definition:
lectlaw.com
PERJURY - When a person, having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the U.S. authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; 18 USC
In order for a person to be found guilty of perjury the government
must prove: the person testified under oath before [e.g., the grand
jury]; at least one particular statement was false; and the person
knew at the time the testimony was false.
The testimony of one witness is not enough to support a finding
that the testimony was false. There must be additional evidence,
either the testimony of another person or other evidence, which tends
to support the testimony of falsity. The other evidence, standing
alone, need not convince that the testimony was false, but all the
evidence on the subject must do so.
all rights reserved 'lectric Law Library(tm) lectlaw.com
|
