When lawyers are asked questions about whether Clinton's variety of civil perjury would ordinarily be prosecuted, they are not generally asked the question in a very precise way, so a variety of answers, depending upon whom the legal experts favor, are very easy to give. (I purposely framed the question vaguely myself, above.)
Perjury in any civil proceeding at all is quite rare, but by no means unheard of. Perjury in a dismissed proceeding of any kind is less likely still, unless the perjury went directly to why the case was dismissed (as it emphatically DID NOT) in the Jones case. Perjury about consensual sexual matters in a civil case is, essentially, or entirely unheard of. Including in sexual harassment cases. Not to mention such perjury, when the line of question was later ruled "not essential" to the fair determination of the case by the Judge.
And then throw in the word dances, and the efforts by Clinton, at least partly successful, to avoid dead on falsehood, after giving weight to the defendant's interpretation of the language.
No way Jose. Never ever.
Doug |
