Johannes, your arguments are unceasingly absolutist and extremist. And you always refuse to address, head on, the points which I make. Let me now address once again, head on, your most recent points.
The essence of the argument you make in the referenced post, is that the fact that more minor instances of perjury are often overlooked does not mean it should be. You assert that it is disastrous that it is, and that we need to start reasserting the rule of law.
You further allude, for the umpteenth time, that Clinton is the "highest law enforcement officer" of the land. You imply here, and have stated many times before, that if Clinton "gets off" without punishment here, the demonstration effect for the rest of the country would be awful, and disastrous, for the rule of law.
Now although I have omitted most of your emotion and invective, that is a pretty fair summary of your argument, is it not?
To which I reply this.
There are undoubtedly many instances of perjury which should be pursued, but are not, for want of resources, lack of clear evidence at the outset, and the like. Perjury by gang members to protect the pervasively criminal lifestyles of their fellows should undoubtedly be prosecuted and vigorously. As of course should any white collar criminal enterprise cover-ups.
But I continue to insist that all perjury is not the same. Not by an extreme long shot. It is a label which covers a very wide range of seriousness of offense. It does in fact matter a great deal what is being covered up, and also if what is being covered up is the direct subject of the investigation, or a key element in proving it.
The law in fact provides that if what is covered up is not indeed material to the matter being prosecuted or for which remedy is sought, it is not material. And is not a crime of any sort, whatsoever.
Whether or not Clinton's lying under oath in the Paula Jones suit was "material" has yet to be determined, fully. At the very least, it came very close to being immaterial. It was certainly only collateral. And Judge Wright in fact did rule that the Lewinsky line of questioning was not essential to the Jones suit going forward, and threw it out when it became a bother because of its entanglement with Starr's investigation. If it was not "essential" to the fair and just determination of the Paula Jones suit, how could it possibly be material? Aren't they two different words for the same thing? I think they are, and that the Judge simply wanted to continue putting off that conclusion until closer to trial, as had been her initial (very misguided and unfortunate) determination.
Further the Jones lawsuit had always been regarded as extremely marginal as an harassment suit, based as it was on an alleged single instance of harassment that happened so long ago as to be on the eve of the statute of limitations, and without obvious damage to her. The judge then did indeed dismiss the suit for, essentially, being frivolous. That is, for not making even a plausible minimum showing of damages to her for a jury to determine. This was not just a fortuitous result. The suit had every appearance of being a set up from the beginning.
There is the matter of how her suit came to be taken up, lavishly funded (along with her), and directed by zealous ideological enemies of the President. Who had not previously shown any interest whatsoever in advancing the sexual harassment claims of women.
Even before all of this had fully unfolded it was abundantly clear to many, many current and former prosecutors, who have said so repeatedly on the news talk shows, that if committed by most any other citizen, this sort of civil alleged perjury would never be perused. They haven't said it would be a low priority, we'd go after it if we could, but we probably wouldn't get to it. They've said it would never be perused.
Those who dispute that assessment, do so by sidestepping the point. They assert that while it is true that much fewer instances of civil perjury are prosecuted, civil perjury was indeed prosecuted x times last year that I have found so far.
They of course are avoiding the issue. Some instances of even civil perjury are more important than others. Civil perjury in a civil suit brought to right pervasive discrimination against minorities and a hostile environment, as in say Texaco, which perjury goes directly towards denying some of the conduct which constitutes discrimination, is a vastly different order of seriousness than the alleged perjury in the Jones suit.
I have not once heard anyone, whose background gives us any reason to think they might know, claim that this perjury in this lawsuit would ever be prosecuted under ordinary circumstances.
All of which makes me highly confident in saying that this is a manifestly low, or not very serious, crime. Not its label. It's reality, in all the circumstances.
(We haven't even gotten to the issue of whether Clinton's cleaver little word games succeed in keeping the dissembling to the merely misleading, which like it or not has been firmly ruled not perjury by the Supreme Court, or whether he did in fact technically step over the line. I leave that aside.)
So now we get to your second main point. And that is, because of his high office, and because he is " the Highest Law Enforcement Officer of the Land", even crimes which might not be enforced against others must be vigorously perused against him. Because of the example he inevitably sets.
This is not a trivial argument. It makes some sense, I grant you. But here we are called by our Constitution to look at the standards, the law, which it has itself set out to govern our decision as to whether to remove the Constitution. The Constitution clearly does not adopt the tougher and more stringent standards for the President that you propose. At least certainly not with respect to crimes, which the Constitution requires must be High Crimes. There is more room for debate with respect to Misdemeanors, or misuses of office. Clearly abuse of office which was not criminal, such as vacationing half the year, would be included.
The founding fathers had some reasons for not allowing merely any crime to be grounds for impeachment. For if evidence of any crime could be the pretext for an angered Congress to remove the other party's President from office, there was danger of zealous fishing expeditions into our President's past, and endless largely politically motivated efforts to remove a President through a combination of legal and political maneuvering, whom the People had elected. The founders did not want the President to be removable at the mere pleasure of the Congress. They wanted a co-equal and balancing branch, and did not want Congress to reign supreme. They did not want a Parliamentary form of government, where a vote of no confidence for any reason whatsoever, was enough to remove the head of state.
Again, the most that advocates of removal of the President who have even addressed the Constitution's wording have endeavored to argue, that I at least of heard, is that perjury, and obstruction of justice, can indeed be high crimes.
I emphatically agree. They can. Depending on what is being lied about and covered up. Whether it involves misusing his office, such as the resources of the FBI, to attack people or become involved in a cover up.
But not this particular perjury or even his limited and non coercive hints, perhaps, to Monica that he hoped she would stick by her prior denials of their private affair. Even if Starr does call that obstruction of justice.
The driven success of the Special Counsel in getting the President to say the same thing before the Grand Jury that he said in the Paula Jones suit does not, I think, effect the severity of the conduct by much, if at all. It was mere piling on by the Special Prosecutor. And the desire by the President to preserve what he by then had admitted was nothing more than a highly technical, and legalistic, escape on technical grounds, that he committed perjury in the Jones trial. The repeated lies, if they were lies (did the President fondle Lewinsky's breasts and lower regions on occasion, as she claims, or only kiss her and receive oral sex on a number of occasions, as he claims) were about the exact same narrow distinction. Of no consequence to any other case or outcome, and only mattering in Starr's effort to trap the President.
So, yes. I think I have made some pretty convincing arguments for why the President's behavior does not meet the Constitutional requirements for impeachment and removal from office. For anyone with an open mind.
It still disturbs me that the President has done ANYTHING illegal while in office. I think he has hardly escaped without punishment to date. In reality I think the punishment has been very severe. But nonetheless, to begin to heal the nation, and to assert that even a small illegality under all the circumstances, if committed by the President, is not to be condoned, I think simply dropping the matter is not sufficient. I agree that censure is appropriate.
It is a symbolic act, an act of "only" moral rebuke. Rebuke is I think what is appropriate. I think, in the end, a very large bi-partisan majority would be obtained, which would also be healing. The Constitution does not require censure, but it also does not preclude it, just as it neither requires nor precludes virtually all laws which Congress passes. It is up to their discretion. And I think the right course of action.
Doug |
