Here we have a former official who, like so many current officials, has made an argument based neither on the pedigree of treatment of perjury, nor on the law, but on some judgment heavily weighed by Nixon's crimes and some perception of "what's good for the nation." Censuring is not a Constitutional option where the President is concerned, but Mr. Richardson, like so many other officials, is apparently bent on making it one.
He, like other officials, merely assist the President in the attempt to circumvent the law, essentially saying `In Massachusetts I often never prosecuted for perjury and for the same reasons I did not prosecute, we should not pursue the President.' I do not and have never doubted the President will, like a monarch, not be confronted by our law, but I have always maintained this is adding tremendously to the destruction of our judicial system and thus to our society. To often fail to prosecute perjury is not a respectable argument because it does not support that we >should< fail. In fact, it creates a problem that the current Attorney General of the United States has claimed is "epidemic". The problem? Rampant perjury in our judicial system.
In a November 1996 report by the Department of Justice claimed the existence of rampant perjury and obstruction of justice in our nation's courts of law. The report claimed:
"In a number of jurisdictions, statutes against witness tampering, suborning perjury (encouraging perjury by threats or inducements), or obstruction of justice do not carry high enough penalties to either deter or substantially punish witness intimidation... defendants are reported to feel they have little to lose -- and a great deal to gain (from perjury and obstruction)."
It mentioned very high instances of perjury across the country, and a great lack of respect for law amongst the nation's youth. It claimed that because gang members have repeatedly seen perjury go unpunished in our nation's courts, gang members are amongst the most consistent perjurers.
Assistant Attorney General Ann Bingaman in a speech "The Clinton Administration: Trends in Enforcement", stated essentially that the only way to stem the tide of rampant perjury in our country is simply to consistently execute the laws against perjury and imposing stronger sentences against perjurers.
The Department of Justice issued a series of eight "absolutes" to deal with potential violations amongst law enforcement. Amongst them is "absolute" number 3, which states "It is always wrong to falsify or plant evidence against anyone, to file false reports, or to commit perjury". For an officer violating these absolutes, the department recommends reprimand and suspension, and if the violation also results in a breach of federal law, the officer is to be dismissed upon conviction.
Clinton is our nation's highest law enforcement official, but you would refute the current Department of Justice of the United States by adding to its absolutes "If it's Bill Clinton's perjury, then we can overlook it"; and here along with Mr. Clinton, you merely add to the ongoing destruction of our society's judicial system. - (when I return from a little trip with my sons, I will post an article dealing with Mr. Clinton's perjury. Or maybe I will paraphrase it. In this article is made an argument, and not mere comments about how some perjuries "aren't that bad".) |
