Hi dougjn; Regarding your statement: "Perjury about consensual sexual matters in a civil case is, essentially, or entirely unheard of." Take a look at the following link, brought to you by the US Department of Justice. Note that this is a civil case, the woman lied about consensual sex, and now she has had to plead guilty to obstruction of justice for it:
On October 31, 1992, Arthur sued Battalino and the VA in U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, alleging that Battalino committed medical malpractice when she engaged in sexual relations with him during an office visit
On July 13-14, 1995, Chief Magistrate Judge Mikel Williams conducted a hearing to determine the scope of Battalino's employment at the VA. During the hearing she testified falsely under oath about what had happened between Arthur and her during his visit on June 27, 1991. In so doing, she violated the obstruction of justice statute, Title 18, United States Code, Section 1503. She is scheduled to be sentenced on July 20, 1998 at 9:30 A.M. before the Honorable Edward J. Lodge.
usdoj.gov
I am sure you can find some differences between this and the Clinton case. I will start you off with: (1) The woman, unlike the President, did not have the benefit of the best legal counsel in the country. (2) Unlike the President, she had not sworn an oath to uphold the laws and constitution &c. (3) Unlike the President, she is not generally looked up to as a leader. (4) Unlike the President, she does not control a vast web of incredibly powerful people, capable of planting lies and misinformation about others...
-- Carl |
