A is too moving for a scope; B is too spread for any but a shotgun.
PART A
Let me paraphrase your position: [I expect critique until I have it right.]
@Clinton did perjure.
@Perjury is illegal.
@Illegal is grounds for dismissal in his job description. He should lose his job.
Mine simplified:
@Clinton testified to protect what the law had no authority to put at risk, but was Illegally confiscating, not to withhold what was legally the court's. This may not even qualify as perjury or be illegal.
@He was obligated to prevent the court from acting illegally and causing innocent damage, even though his be an illegal action.
@He should be praised.
[Where am I unclear or gone astray?]
PART B
Neocon, I am frustrated by my lack of precise language and lack of relevant examples. Let me try an analogy:
The warden of the prison says to the kid guard to take these prisoners out to the swamp and work them till the truck comes. The guard and gang go work. Unknown to any participant at the time, the flood is coming. Perhaps rain, or the dam burst. Old Joe has been a swamp critter all his life and sees the signs. He tells the kid guard. The guard considers and says no. 4 times. Joe is getting nervous, actually fearing for lives. He knocks out the guard, takes him and the rest of the gang to high ground where they wait till the truck comes and picks everyone up.
To be tedious, Warden=law; Kid Guard= Wright; Old Joe=Clinton; flood=damage from discovery; Guard told=Clinton discovery arguments; Knock out=Perjury; Safety and all secure [no escape]=not hiding a crime in the original case.
Knocking out the guard is clearly against laws on the books. But many would consider it a justified action, as well as illegal. My feeling is this kind of illegality for a higher purpose occurs rather frequently in America. Some are not 'caught'. Some have no charges pressed. Some are investigated, and dropped by the police. Some are dropped by the DA. Some are dropped by the grand jury. Some are dismissed by the trial judge. And some juries nullify the charge. Where does this justification come from? Not from the laws on the book, but from other sources of law. What sources is an issue I have. Post-incident justification does exist, but it is easier when the justification is Pre, written into the law, like justifiable homicide. I suspect the Preamble holds many of the justifications for legal oddities like this example, and like Clinton's problem. Therefore, he Was acting Constitutionally, even though illegally!
Judge Wright has the ability to witness evidence on this matter, but not to make a ruling--the issue [not the facts, granted] is beyond her authority within written law. The reason is obvious--were she, like the guard, to be at risk of her job for endangering her charges, she would be conflicted to accept blame for the problem or allow the sword to fall on another. The amount of fines is not a problem--it isn't my money. The discouragement of appeal seems outrageous legally, and is outrageous to common sense--it is my law too.
These are the issues I see not being addressed. Was Clinton justified; by what justification; what mechanism exists to protect those who exercise responsibility for those in peril [especially peril caused by the law] and become themselves at risk before the law; why did these mechanisms fail Clinton; what responsibility is there for subsequent happenings [what if the guard died or the gang escaped?]?
These are some stabs I've made in trying to answer these issues. These questions are implied in the Constitution before that document begins to setup the specifics of law. < There is no recourse against a bad law except to change it or get a court to set it aside. > The Principle of the Rule of Law derives from the whole Constitution, not the part starting with setting up Congress. What is illegal by Congress may be legal by the amorphous part starting with We the People. To maintain consistency between the different levels of law, the Rule of Law has the power to make legal what it had considered illegal. See my frustration with terms as simple as legal? The gap of time and lives between the legal inconsistency and the resolution is my fascination with the suit.
<As for protecting against "collateral damage", that is not a defense against perjury, although it may be a mitigating factor in sentencing...> It may be a defense in...? Heck, it may even be cause for praise and reward. The difference between a justified action and a legal action is relatively moot to me. I have likely created problems in discussions with that. Actually, between a justified illegal action and an unjustified legal action I have to hold the former in more esteem. The law does let people down, which is equivalent to the law does let the law down.
I hope I've kept away from the disposition of the suit. |
