# Henry Hyde: Clinton impeachment was payback for Nixon's **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 22, 2005, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600 "2005-04-22T14:41:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/101 "2005-04-25T14:51:31Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Once more, in the grand jury testimony, Clinton _admitted_ the blow job. The blow job was not part of his articles of impeachment. So when you posted [this,](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=4553714&highlight=Clinton+blowjob#post4553714) you were knowingly posting falsehood. Color me shocked. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/102 "2005-04-25T15:04:49Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > So when you posted [this,](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=4553714&highlight=Clinton+blowjob#post4553714) you were knowingly posting falsehood. > > Color me shocked. > > Regards, > Shodan What was untruthful about that post? I said they impeached him over a blow job. Politically that’s an accurate statement. Don’t be such a fucking sophist. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/103 "2005-04-25T18:09:18Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > What was untruthful about that post? I said they impeached him over a blow job. Politically that’s an accurate statement. Don’t be such a fucking sophist. I think it a marvelous bit of irony that, in the same post where you’re defending the former First Sophist, you’re whining about sophistry from your political opponents. Care to define “is” for us? At any rate, I’ll pick up your reply to me a bit later, when I can blow the dust off the research I did on this question back as a young law student. IIRC, “materiality” for purposes of perjury is established at the time of the questioning, and not as events later unfurl. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/104 "2005-04-25T18:15:08Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > I’ve come to the conclusion that conservatives don’t really GET democracy. They “get” it just fine – that’s why they don’t like it… ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/105 "2005-04-25T18:32:31Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > At any rate, I’ll pick up your reply to me a bit later, when I can blow the dust off the research I did on this question back as a young law student. IIRC, “materiality” for purposes of perjury is established at the time of the questioning, and not as events later unfurl. I am pretty sure that there is no process for deciding materiality during _discovery_, is there? If so, perhaps you can provide a cite for a finding by Judge Wright during the deposition that the Lewinsky questions were material? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/106 "2005-04-25T18:56:56Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I am pretty sure that there is no process for deciding materiality during _discovery_, is there? No, it would be determined during the perjury prosecution trial, either as an evidentiary matter (do we allow in evidence that the matter turned out to be immaterial?) or as a jury instruction (jury instructed as to when materiality is to be determined). At any rate, there is case law developing this point, IIRC, although I can’t check until tonight. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/107 "2005-04-25T19:04:37Z")
Not as a replacement for what **Dewey** promises, which should be very interesting reading IMO, but as a personal-experience observation: we were sued a couple of years ago relative to an auto accident. The set of questions propounded by plaintiff’s attorneys during discovery were incredibly invasive. I discussed this with the attorney the insurance company retained in my behalf, he pointed out the possible relevance of four of the seven I felt unduly invasive of my privacy and not relevant (e.g., level of education attained), and advised me to decline to answer the other three, responding with a formula requesting that plaintiff show relevance to the case at hand. We didn’t hear another word from them. That’s just a layman’s FWIW. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/108 "2005-04-25T19:29:14Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > No, it would be determined during the perjury prosecution trial, either as an evidentiary matter (do we allow in evidence that the matter turned out to be immaterial?) or as a jury instruction (jury instructed as to when materiality is to be determined). At any rate, there is case law developing this point, IIRC, although I can’t check until tonight. I’d love to find out. **Airman** clearly was blowing smoke up our butts with his claims about what woulda happened to him if he’d done the same thing as Clinton, but just because he was lying doesn’t mean he was incorrect: it’s perfectly possible, for all I know, that people HAVE been thrown in prison for lying about an irrelevant fact during a civil deposition. I’d really like to know. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/109 "2005-04-26T02:22:14Z")
OK, quick bit of background: in the fall of 1998, I was in my third year of law school. One of the requirements for graduation was taking a seminar course and writing a paper associated with the seminar. Given the events of the day, UT offered a seminar on the Independent Counsel statute, taught by a recently elected state appellate judge. I took the course, and, given the headlines, elected to write about the perjury angle in the Clinton matter. My paper was written after the Starr Report (well, it came out early in the semester, anyway), but before the House voted out articles of impeachment (the Judiciary Committee was holding hearings as finals came and went). Anyway, I’d rather not try to edit the perjury section of the paper into a message-board friendly format, so here’s the abbreviated summary of some of the key perjury cases I cited in the paper: _United States v. Gaudin_, 515 U.S. 506 (1995) – establishes conclusively that materiality is a jury issue in perjury prosecutions. _Barnes v. United States_, 378 F.2d 646 (5th Cir. 1967) – perjured testimony need not affect the ultimate issue of a trial in order to be prosecuted. _United States v. Slutzky_, 79 F.2d 504 at 506 (3rd Cir. 1935) – ditto. _Blackmon v. United States_, 108 F.2d 572 at 574 (5th Cir. 1940) – mere relevance sufficient; anything asked on cross examination may be considered material. _United States v. Allen_, 131 F. Supp. 323 at 326 (E.D. Mich. 1955) – actual effect of perjured testimony does not impact prosecution. _United States v. Masters_, 484 F.2d 1251 at 1254 (10th Cir. 1973) – ditto. _United States v. Larocca_, 245 F.2d 196 at 197-98 (3rd Cir. 1957) – subsequent disposition of case does not impact perjury prosecution. _United States v. Stone_, 429 F. 2d 138 at 140 (2nd Cir. 1970) – Materiality “must only be established as of the time the witness’ answers were given.” NOTE: these cases were good law as of fall 1998, but I haven’t Shepardized them since, so reader beware. It’s also been seven years or so since I wrote it, so don’t expect me to have the details of the cases at my fingertips. If anyone wants to read the paper to see all my glorious footnotes, give me your email and I’ll send you a copy. I’d have written it a bit differently now that I’m a mite older and wiser, but I still think the conclusions are valid. So did my prof; I got an A. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/110 "2005-04-26T02:48:31Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > OK, quick bit of background: in the fall of 1998, I was in my third year of law school. One of the requirements for graduation was taking a seminar course and writing a paper associated with the seminar. Given the events of the day, UT offered a seminar on the Independent Counsel statute, taught by a recently elected state appellate judge. I took the course, and, given the headlines, elected to write about the perjury angle in the Clinton matter. My paper was written after the Starr Report (well, it came out early in the semester, anyway), but before the House voted out articles of impeachment (the Judiciary Committee was holding hearings as finals came and went). > > Anyway, I’d rather not try to edit the perjury section of the paper into a message-board friendly format, so here’s the abbreviated summary of some of the key perjury cases I cited in the paper: > > _United States v. Gaudin_, 515 U.S. 506 (1995) – establishes conclusively that materiality is a jury issue in perjury prosecutions. Ok, so whether a “lie” is material is for the jury to decide? > [@](#): > > _Barnes v. United States_, 378 F.2d 646 (5th Cir. 1967) – perjured testimony need not affect the ultimate issue of a trial in order to be prosecuted. > _United States v. Slutzky_, 79 F.2d 504 at 506 (3rd Cir. 1935) – ditto. Understood. Also, not applicable in the Clinton case, since there never was a trial. > [@](#): > > _Blackmon v. United States_, 108 F.2d 572 at 574 (5th Cir. 1940) – mere relevance sufficient; anything asked on cross examination may be considered material. This sounds like it pertains to trials, not discovery. Clinton was not asked the sex question on cross, nor was there any establishment of “relevance” that I’m aware of. > [@](#): > > _United States v. Allen_, 131 F. Supp. 323 at 326 (E.D. Mich. 1955) – actual effect of perjured testimony does not impact prosecution. > > _United States v. Masters_, 484 F.2d 1251 at 1254 (10th Cir. 1973) – ditto. No argument here. > [@](#): > > _United States v. Larocca_, 245 F.2d 196 at 197-98 (3rd Cir. 1957) – subsequent disposition of case does not impact perjury prosecution. I should hope not. > [@](#): > > _United States v. Stone_, 429 F. 2d 138 at 140 (2nd Cir. 1970) – Materiality “must only be established as of the time the witness’ answers were given.” Now I’m confused. I thought materiality was a question for the jury. What does it mean if there was no establishment of materiality during discovery? > [@](#): > > NOTE: these cases were good law as of fall 1998, but I haven’t Shepardized them since, so reader beware. It’s also been seven years or so since I wrote it, so don’t expect me to have the details of the cases at my fingertips. > > If anyone wants to read the paper to see all my glorious footnotes, give me your email and I’ll send you a copy. I’d have written it a bit differently now that I’m a mite older and wiser, but I still think the conclusions are valid. So did my prof; I got an A. I appreciate the research but I wouldn’t mine hearing some elucidation on how this pertains to the Clinton deposition. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/111 "2005-04-26T03:09:20Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Understood. Also, not applicable in the Clinton case, since there never was a trial. The principle stated is equally applicable to pretrial discovery situations. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Now I’m confused. I thought materiality was a question for the jury. What does it mean if there was no establishment of materiality during discovery? You miss the point, which is that materiality must be looked at from the time the question was asked. A jury in a perjury trial will be instructed, when considering whether a piece of perjured testimony is material, to consider whether it was material at the time it was asked, without regard for subsequent events. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I appreciate the research but I wouldn’t mine hearing some elucidation on how this pertains to the Clinton deposition. I’ve sent the full paper to your board-listed email; it gives more detail on some of the cases. Obviously I’m not going to go reinvent a bunch of years-old research over this – if you want to open up a Lexis or Westlaw account, feel free; I’m not going to run up charges over a message board discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/112 "2005-04-26T03:24:33Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > You miss the point, which is that materiality must be looked at from the time the question was asked. A jury in a perjury trial will be instructed, when considering whether a piece of perjured testimony is material, to consider whether it was material at the time it was asked, without regard for subsequent events. Ok, thank you. I understand it now. I wasn’t trying to be a wise ass with that question, I was genuinely confused. You’ve cleared that up, so thanks. > [@](#): > > I’ve sent the full paper to your board-listed email; it gives more detail on some of the cases. Obviously I’m not going to go reinvent a bunch of years-old research over this – if you want to open up a Lexis or Westlaw account, feel free; I’m not going to run up charges over a message board discussion. I appreciate you sending me the paper but all I was really asking for was an off the cuff opinion on whether a jury would have been likely to find BC guilty of perjury (or whether Joe Citizen would have been likely to go to prison under the same circumstancs). It was not my intention to ask you to do any more research or make a comprehensive argument. I respect your opinion at face value. Thanks again for the paper. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/113 "2005-04-26T03:27:02Z")
I also note the following footnote from Judge Wright’s contempt order against President Clinton: * * * 1. In so ruling, and contrary to numerous assertions, **this Court did not rule that evidence of the Lewinsky matter was irrelevant or immaterial to the issues in plaintiff’s case. Indeed, the Court specifically acknowledged that such evidence might have been relevant to plaintiff’s case and, as she argued, “might possibly have helped her establish, among other things, intent, absence of mistake, motive and habit on the part of the President.”** 993 F.Supp. at 1222 (citing Fed.R.Evid. 404(b), 406). At the time, however, the court anticipated that the President and Ms. Lewinsky would both deny a sexual relationship and that plaintiff would attempt to rebut their denials with extrisnic evidence that could be inadmissable under Red.R.Evid. 608(b). To stay discovery so that plaintiff could explore such evidence would ahve required extensive additional delay. In that regard, this Court made the decision to disallow discovery as to Ms. Lweinksy and to excluded evidence concerning her from trial, not because the Court considered such evidence to be irrelevant or imaterial, but because is admission would frustrate the timely resolution of this case and cause undue expense and delay, the substantial interests of the Presidency militated against any undue that would be occasioned by allowing plaintiff to pursue the Lewinksy matter, and the government’s criminal proceedings (to which this Court generally must yield in civil matters) could be impaired and prejudiced were the Court to permit inquiry into the Lewinksy matter by the parties in this civil case. _Id_ at 1219-20. The Court noted that evidence of the Lewinksy matter, even assuming it to be very favorable to plaintiff, was “not essential to the _core issues_ in this case of whether plaintiff _herself_ was the vicitim of _quid pro quo_ harrassment, hostile work harrassment, or intentional inflicetion of emotional distress.” _Id_. at 1222 (emphasis in original). * * * Bolding mine, all else as in original. I have a scanned copy of the order if anyone wants to see it. **Dio** , I assume you do and am emailing it to you. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/114 "2005-04-26T03:31:50Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I appreciate you sending me the paper but all I was really asking for was an off the cuff opinion on whether a jury would have been likely to find BC guilty of perjury (or whether Joe Citizen would have been likely to go to prison under the same circumstancs). Well, goodness, that’s a complex question. Do I think a reasonable jury could have found him guilty? Yes. Are they likely to do so? Probably not, and not because he wasn’t actually guilty, but because juries are funny beasts. I thought they had a pretty good case against OJ, after all. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/115 "2005-04-26T03:48:05Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > I also note the following footnote from Judge Wright’s contempt order against President Clinton: > > * * * > > 1. In so ruling, and contrary to numerous assertions, **this Court did not rule that evidence of the Lewinsky matter was irrelevant or immaterial to the issues in plaintiff’s case. Indeed, the Court specifically acknowledged that such evidence might have been relevant to plaintiff’s case and, as she argued, “might possibly have helped her establish, among other things, intent, absence of mistake, motive and habit on the part of the President.”** 993 F.Supp. at 1222 (citing Fed.R.Evid. 404(b), 406). At the time, however, the court anticipated that the President and Ms. Lewinsky would both deny a sexual relationship and that plaintiff would attempt to rebut their denials with extrisnic evidence that could be inadmissable under Red.R.Evid. 608(b). To stay discovery so that plaintiff could explore such evidence would ahve required extensive additional delay. In that regard, this Court made the decision to disallow discovery as to Ms. Lweinksy and to excluded evidence concerning her from trial, not because the Court considered such evidence to be irrelevant or imaterial, but because is admission would frustrate the timely resolution of this case and cause undue expense and delay, the substantial interests of the Presidency militated against any undue that would be occasioned by allowing plaintiff to pursue the Lewinksy matter, and the government’s criminal proceedings (to which this Court generally must yield in civil matters) could be impaired and prejudiced were the Court to permit inquiry into the Lewinksy matter by the parties in this civil case. _Id_ at 1219-20. The Court noted that evidence of the Lewinksy matter, even assuming it to be very favorable to plaintiff, was “not essential to the _core issues_ in this case of whether plaintiff _herself_ was the vicitim of _quid pro quo_ harrassment, hostile work harrassment, or intentional inflicetion of emotional distress.” _Id_. at 1222 (emphasis in original). > > * * * > > Bolding mine, all else as in original. > > I have a scanned copy of the order if anyone wants to see it. **Dio** , I assume you do and am emailing it to you. Thank you again but if the question of materiality is one to be decided by a jury then the fact that a judge did not make an _a priori_ finding of **im** materiality during discovery does not bind the jury to find that it _was_ material, does it? > [@](#): > > Well, goodness, that’s a complex question. Do I think a reasonable jury could have found him guilty? Yes. Are they likely to do so? Probably not, and not because he wasn’t actually guilty, but because juries are funny beasts. I thought they had a pretty good case against OJ, after all. Fine (even though don’t agree that he was guilty) but if the defendant were not the President of the United States (which would obviously be so atypical and anomolous that normal predictions and expectations would go out the window) but say, a bank manager, is it actually likely that he would even be prosecuted, much less do time? To cut to the chase, **Airman Doors** said that if he had done the same thing as Clinton, he would have gone to jail. In your experience, **Dewey** , is AD’s statement a fair reflection of reality? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/116 "2005-04-26T05:12:47Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Thank you again but if the question of materiality is one to be decided by a jury then the fact that a judge did not make an _a priori_ finding of **im** materiality during discovery does not bind the jury to find that it _was_ material, does it? No, but I think the hightlighted language lends credence to the notion that a finding of materiality is eminently plausible. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Fine (even though don’t agree that he was guilty) but if the defendant were not the President of the United States (which would obviously be so atypical and anomolous that normal predictions and expectations would go out the window) but say, a bank manager, is it actually likely that he would even be prosecuted, much less do time? > > To cut to the chase, **Airman Doors** said that if he had done the same thing as Clinton, he would have gone to jail. In your experience, **Dewey** , is AD’s statement a fair reflection of reality? Depends entirely on the prosecutor and the composition of the jury pool. I certainly think it’s possible, and that the arguments in favor of conviction have merit. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/117 "2005-04-26T13:41:38Z")
And not a bit of that discussion is actually relevant to Clinton’s impeachment, except to illustrate the extent to which its supporters have to reach for cover. Amazing how no prosecutor has thought the alleged criminal matter worth pursuing since the failure of the political effort, ain’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/118 "2005-04-26T13:51:34Z")
Well, said political effort can be properly understood as the impeachment. which played out in 1998. Clinton did not resolve the charges with the independent prosecutor until January of 2001, at which time he paid a fine and surrendered his law license in exchange for criminal proceedings being dropped. So your assertion that no prosecutor found the matter worth pursuing after the political effort failed is frankly mistaken. [Cite.](http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/19/clinton.lewinsky/) ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/119 "2005-04-26T13:52:40Z")
Actually, it’s absolutely relevant. **Airman’s** claim is that if he’d done the same thing, he’d be in prison–presumably because he lacks Clinton’s connections. It’s no rebuttal to this claim to point out that Clinton isn’t in prison. Thanks for the information, **Dewey**. It’s probably my ignorance talking here, but I’m still unsure if you’ve given an example of a case in which someone lied about a tangential detail in a civil deposition and faced prison time for doing so, however. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600/120 "2005-04-26T14:09:39Z")
**MM** , where did you get the idea that Starr’s campaign was _not_ part of the political effort? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/henry-hyde-clinton-impeachment-was-payback-for-nixons/300600.md?page=7)