>Johannes, your arguments are unceasingly absolutist and extremist. And you always refuse to address, head on, the points which I make. <
I have addressed your points, head on, in every single instance you have made points. The problem here is, you make points and only points. These points are always based upon what you think or feel, and not upon the law and the ramifications of the nature of presidential perjury to society. You eternally, and ostensibly purposefully forget the president, unlike anyone else, took an oath and, unlike anyone else, repeatedly and flagrantly and cynically broke that oath, this, in a direct assault upon the law of our society. I have proven this over and over again, and all you have done has been to say "but that isn't bad". This is no argument.
It is one thing that the legal system fails to pursue a lie under oath, certainly not a desirable thing, but not a thing as destructive as the repeated and flagrant lying President Clinton has committed. The President's supporters have consistently commented upon the Jones lie as if no other deceptive actions have been committed by the President. Indeed, Richardson hardly mentioned, if ever he did, even the Jones lie, but for the most part merely commented on the fact that Clinton's affair with Lewinsky was not illegal. The problem here is, Clinton's wrongs are not merely associated with Lewinsky, they are also associated with the accusations of sexual harassment. Had he simply told the truth as the law required, and had the judge nixed Clinton's answers as immaterial, the law would have been fulfilled, and the matter would have been over (at least legally). In that he lied, and inasmuch as we really do not know whether the Lewinsky matter was immaterial because the Judge, wanting to protect the Starr investigation as well as to streamline the Jones proceeding, ruled it was not essential, the matter is still open. But Clinton did not stop merely here. He continued to lie repeatedly both to the American people and to a Federal Grand jury, and by now you should have the wherewithal to complete the impeachment argument for yourself.
You consistently and myopically refer to the Jones perjury as if nothing else has been done. You repeatedly claim the President is allowed to literally, repeatedly and flagrantly break his oath to the American public and that there is no great issue to it. We are not talking about a monarchy here, sir. We are not merely talking about the janitor down the street, who has no overarching responsibility to the entire country. We are talking about the President of the United States (!) and you ought never to forget that.
You may have had a point, had Clinton merely lied in the Jones matter and had the law decided to forgive him. I have here often said, had the thing stopped there, I would have been free to reject his politics only. Certainly, I would have lost a great deal more respect for the man, but I would not have pressed for impeachment. But now it is much much worse than you portray it. Much worse, and I am stunned that you fail to see it. In fact, the failure betrays such lunacy, I do not believe it out of basic respect for you (but don't push it).
I weary of you sir, and so will not address the balance of your post, as it merely repeats the same myopic views of your other posts, which is to say, you see the entirety of the President's legal and political crimes as if they were one thing: a leedle biddy lie. This is silly, and surely you must know it is silly.
I have sufficiently and repeatedly made the case for the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, and believe anyone who deeply respects the law, the nation and the Presidency will be compelled to seriously consider them. Those who have a liberal axe to grind, or who want to protect Bill Clinton, specifically (because of all the "good things" he has done), will reject them. But these reasons are not respectable to my way of thinking. I have shown how the President has broken public trust and how in having done so he is impeachable. I have built the argument precept upon precept, using the Constitution and other writings of that document's authors. You have never once countered these arguments with reasoned arguments of your own. You have merely said, effectively, "but his breaking the law isn't so bad", or "no one would get him for that", "it isn't like Nixon's lies". Again, these are no arguments, and they in every case overlook the totality of Clinton's wrongs.
I have spent much too much time here, attempting to drum into your skull the facts of your President's wrongs, and if you refuse to see them, to understand their severity to the nation, then it is your problem (I marvel that I once cared). Certainly it is foolish to give a stamp of approval to a pathologically lying President, and that is what censuring is. But it is what America wants, and it will be what America will get. You will win here, but not because of the law, and your myopia, indeed the myopia of our country will further allow us to slip toward disrespect for the rule of law.
I likely will not be returning here (how is it we can spend so much time here <g>), as I am much too busy to repeatedly address the same myopic and silly statements I have already addressed here. I merely ask, for your own sake, that you step away from your view, and see the thing more globally-- see the big picture. Just try it, it is liberating. As promised, I will leave you an article that, unlike yours, makes an argument. Good day, sir, and congratulations in that your camp will undoubtedly hang on to your President.
Even if, events should ocurr that would force your President out of office. I will not be pleased. I do not want to hurt the man. I simply believe him unfit for office.
Getting to know presidential perjury
By Gregory G. Garre
August 4, 1998
As the Lewinsky investigation enters its final stage, it is worth pausing to reflect on why it has gotten to this point in the first place. While the White House would have Americans believe that the investigation concerns nothing more than sex between consenting adults, the independent counsel is not investigating private sex. He is investigating whether the president of the United States perjured himself --or suborned the perjury of others-- in providing sworn testimony to the courts. This is a matter of great public import. Perjury, especially by those in high office, corrupts faith in self-government and threatens the rule of law.
The effort to root out perjury- the willful assertion of a false statement under oath- is ages old. The Romans threw perjurers from the Tarpeian Rock. The Greeks branded them with a mark of infamy. The English criminalized perjury in the Statute of 1563, making the offense punishable by imprisonment and a fine. Perjurers unable to pay the fine were subjected to pillory in the public square during which their ears were to be "nailed." The perjury offense settled in America with the colonists. And it was one of only a handful of crimes codified during the very first session of the First Congress in 1790, made punishable by imprisonment and a fine, and pillory. Today perjury -and subornation of perjury-- is punishable under an array of federal statutes by up to five years imprisonment and a fine, and is proscribed in every state of the union and the District of Columbia.
This historical pedigree is well founded. Blackstone included perjury among the handful of crimes know as "mala in se," or against the rights that God and nature have established. But the perjury offense is also borne of a more practical concern --the indispensability of sworn testimony to the rule of law. As the Supreme Court recently recognized, "means of ensuring the truth in human testimony has been a thing desired in every age."
Sworn testimony is a vital source of information in making important governmental decisions at all levels, including those affecting the significant liberty and property interests at stake in judicial proceedings. The legitimacy of our system of justice depends in large measure on whether witnesses called to testify under oath tell the truth, and do not attempt to dissuade others from doing so. Thus, the nation's greatest jurist, Chief Justice John Marshall, recognized that the punishment of perjury was key to "the due administration of justice" in McCulloch vs. Maryland. Perjury is a scourge on any legitimate system of justice.
The need to protect the integrity of our justice system has perhaps never been more pressing in this country. A recent survey indicates that federal and state judges, prosecutors and legal experts believe that perjury is being committed in our courts with greater frequency and impunity than ever before. Indeed, one federal district court judge called perjury, "the justice system's dirty little secret that no one wants to admit or confront," and observed that "[t]he problem is so pervasive that it has gotten dangerous."
The same survey indicates that perjury prosecutions have not kept pace with this alarming trend. This is due in part to the fact that prosecutorial resources are already stretched thin at both the federal and state level, and the fact that perjury --even when apparent by all circumstantial accounts --is still notoriously difficult to prove.
The legitimacy of the justice system would be dealt a terrible blow if it turned out that the nation's chief executive officer --charged by the Constitution with the responsibility for faithfully executing the laws --perjured himself. Our most revered presidents have possessed almost mythical honesty. Since our founding, American children have been raised to follow the example of George Washington, who reportedly returned to profess after cutting down his father's cherry tree that "he could not tell a lie." Folklore abounds as to the honorary and integrity of the president who saved our union and was known to many Americans simply as "Honest Abe." The nation is still recovering from the lies and deceit of Watergate, which resulted in the perjury convictions of the president's subordinates, the resignation of the president himself, and incalculable damage to the public trust. What do we tell our children if it turns out that the 42nd president flat-out lied under oath, or encouraged other to do so?
Perjury presents even graver problems when committed by those holding positions of public trust. As President Washington admonished in his farewell address, "The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes to the story of every individual to obey the established government." That includes the president.
Before assuming office, every president takes an oath that is perhaps even more sacred than the one Mr. Clinton took before giving his sworn testimony to the courts --the oath to "faithfully execute the Office of the President" and to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution." If Americans cannot trust their president to abide by one sworn oath, why should they have any faith in his fidelity to the other. And if we cannot trust what our president says under oath, how can we --or the political leaders with which he constantly deals-- take him at his word when he has not sworn to tell the truth. After all, just last January Mr. Clinton looked America in the eye and, with steely resolve, said he had not had sexual relations with "that woman."
Some have questioned whether Mr. Clinton's sworn testimony in the Paula Jones case about his relationship with Miss Lewinsky is appropriate grist for the federal perjury laws. This is the type of legal issue that lawyers love to debate, and it ultimately would have to be resolved by a court --or a Congress investigating Mr. Starr's impending report. But all bets are off if the president sticks to his story when he testifies again under oath --before the criminal grand jury investigating the Lewinsky matter. As the Supreme Court emphasized just this past term, ""Witnesses appearing before the grand jury under oath are... required to testify truthfully, on pain of being prosecuted for perjury." Of course, any individual called before a grand jury --even a president may invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and remain silent. But once the individual forgoes the privilege --as Mr. Clinton would be under enormous political pressure to do-- he must tell the truth. The justice system depends on it.
While recent reports indicate that the evidence may be mounting against Mr. Clinton, there remains a great deal to be seen before the people of America, or our representatives, may make any sort of an informed judgment as to whether our president is a perjurer. Let us hope he is not. But as Mr. Starr's investigation enters its end game, the gravity of the situation should not be lost. Presidential perjury strikes at the heart of self-government and threatens the rule of law.
Gregory G. Garre practices law in the District of Columbia. |
