Cal Thomas, "Burton Soars Over Clinton in Integrity," Los Angeles Times, (9 September 1998):
Had Bill Clinton "merely" had a sexual encounter with Monica Lewinsky in the White House, it would still have been outrageous. He still would have hurt his family. The office of the presidency would still have been sullied. But he would not have committed a potentially impeachable offense. His fate would have been left to the opinion polls and historians.
But he lied about his affair under oath. And the forthcoming report by the Office of the Independent Counsel is likely to present evidence that he caused others to lie and tried to keep authorities from learning the truth.
Robert Blecker, "How Does Congress Define 'Perjury'?" Wall Street Journal (9 December 1998):
"Because we believe that the crime of perjury depends not only upon the clarity of the questioning itself, but also upon the knowledge and reasonable understanding of the testifier as to what is meant by the questioning," the Sixth Circuit declared, "we hold that a defendant may be found guilty of perjury if a jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence presented that the defendant knew what the question meant and gave knowingly untruthful and materially misleading answers in response."
Whatever else it does, Congress should sweep away this mess by enacting a law clarifying the meaning of perjury: "A person commits p
erjury who intentionally makes a materially false statement under oath. A person who gives an answer not literally false but consciously calculated to create a materially false impression when considered in the context in which it was given, also commits perjury."
William Glaberson, "Testing of a President: Legal Issues," New York Times (18 November 1998):
Defenders of President Clinton have argued that his accusers are overzealous in saying he should be impeached or subject to criminal charges on the grounds that he committed perjury when he denied in a civil deposition that he had a sexual relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky.
But a review of more than 100 perjury cases in state and Federal courts and statistics on the perjury prosecutions brought around the country show that people are prosecuted for what might be called small lies more regularly than the Clinton defenders have suggested.
Eric Schmitt, "Consequences of Perjury Debated in the House," New York Times (2 December 1998):
In a highly partisan hearing that featured a parade of witnesses, from convicted perjurers to Federal judges to a decorated Army general who has retired,
Republicans tried to underscore perjury's harmful effects on the nation's justice system.
''If citizens are allowed to lie with impunity -- or encourage others to tell false stories or hide evidence -- judges and juries cannot reach just results,'' said Representative Henry J. Hyde of Illinois, the committee chairman.
''At that point, the courtroom becomes an arena for artful liars and the jury a mere focus group choosing between alternative fictions,'' Mr. Hyde said.
William Bennett, "What We Know," Wall Street Journal (10 November 1998):
And we know that when a person testifies under oath that he doesn't remember something when in fact he does, he has committed perjury.
Defenders of the president insist this as an impeachment about illicit sex even though none of the articles of impeachment are about sexual behavior. And so the question the House Judiciary Committee must decide during the next month is the same one that faced the committee a quarter-century ago, when it considered whether to impeach Richard Nixon: Will it reaffirm the time-honored American ideal that no man is above the law? If committee members answer yes, there is only one principled way for them to conclude this inquiry: the impeachment of the president.
Reply With Quote
