I’ve heard an argument quite a bit from leftward leaning posters. It goes like this, and please excuse me if I paraphrase it poorly. Feel free to restate it:
“While Bill Clinton may have lied under oath and committed perjury, he only did so to cover up indiscretions of a personal nature. Members of the Bush administration are being indicted for perjuries related to issues of National Policy, which have brought us to war, hazarded the safety of CIA agents across the world, and may extend so far as to be treasoness. Equating the two is absurd and foolish to the point of stupidity.”
We may reduce this argument to the Blowjob Treason Equivavence Fallacy or BTEF for short.
For the sake of argument and debate, let us take this argument at face value as factual and say that:
Clinton did commit perjury but only to cover up a personal indiscretion.
Libby also committed perjury, but he was covering up a treasonous act.
Both these perjuries were made before equivalent authorites under equivalent federal oaths.
Is it a fallacy to equate these two crimes, or are they equivalent legally and morally?
My answer is simple: It is not a fallacy. The two crimes are exactly equivalent morally and legally.
The reasoning behind this is: The whole point of testifying under oath is to provide information to an impartial authority that can judge it’s meaning, context and scope and act accordingly.
Under these circumstances one may not make these judgements for himself, and decide to lie or conceal the truth. As such, perjury is a crime that is unrelated as to the circumstances under which it is made.
Perjury is a crime against the system of justice and society in general. It’s severity is not altered by the seriousness of the crime being investigated, but rather by the authority which hears the perjury and by the degree with which the perjury obstructs or derails the process.
Let’s say for the sake of argument that it is factually demonstrated that nobody in the administration outed Plame. For the sake of argument they find out that it was… Michael Jackson who gave out the information.
However, Scooter did not know this when he testified. He was afraid that maybe somebody in the administration did leak the information. Therefore, when he testified he lied in order to make the administration appear blameless.
Under this scenario Scoter is just as guilty, morally and legally, as if he had directly lied and covered up for a party who he knew was guilty.
A serious question. I asked this in the other thread: is perjury/obstruction in a criminal vs. civil case more serious or subject to weightier penalties? Legally serious, ignoring morally or ethically or other posturing. Which is more serious, or are both equal?
In a strictly legal sense, perhaps, although our Legal Beagles would if pressed certainly be willing to discuss the role of a prosecutor’s discretion in charging it for testimony about the heart of an investigation versus something incidental or irrelevant.
But the legal system doesn’t operate in a vacuum, does it? Trying to confine a discussion only to the “technicalities”, and thereby draw false equivalences, is a traditional method of the GOP partisans. So, for that matter, is their jujitsu of claiming it’s the other guys doing it. Neither the Clinton investigation (which, despite the OP’s insinuation, did NOT result in a perjury charge and is therefore not equivalent even under his own comfortably-limited definitions), nor the ongoing Plamegate investigation, would have existed if not for their subjects’ positions and use of political power. They are inextricable from the world of politics and public opinion. What the false statements were about therefore do matter. Their ethicality and degree of moral seriousness are defined on that basis.
I agree that two perjuries are equivalent, whatever situation they occurred in. A lie under oath is a lie under oath.
However, the two overall sets of crimes may not be equal. Since Libby is indicted on a couple of counts of perjury, a count of obstruction of justice and two counts of making a false statement to a federal agent, IIRC, whereas the accusation against Clinton was a count of perjury (and a count of obstruction of justice?) you could argue that Libby’s actions constitute a bigger group of criminal behaviours, and thus a bigger attempt to pervert the course of justice.
(We’re also not going into a moral comparison of Libby’s vs Clinton’s alleged original actions…)
INAL, but I believe that’s a reference to the “Justifiable Fibulation” defense. It may only be filed in the Court of Public Opinion, and only when the press is on your side.
First, the OP is stating that actual perjury charges are equivalent to insinuations that an action might constitute perjury. That is false on its face.
Second, there would be no reason for an OP to exist if it only said what you say it says.
Third, the OP is raising a moral issue, but attempting to restrict the discussion to technical legal grounds.
Fourth, even strictly under legal grounds, it does matter what the false statements were about when a prosecutor decides to bring charges.
How can there be any discussion otherwise? Might as well stipulate “Yes, Scylla, perjury is perjury” - but then one would have to ask “So what’s your point?”
Only, again, in the narrow legal sense in which you’re trying to constrain the discussion. But they can’t be adequately assessed outside their contexts, can they? Nothing can.
Only one of the persons you mention was charged with perjury anyway, ya know. Speaking, as you were, of equivalences.
Oh let’s not go down that road again. Clinton committed perjury. Period.
Scylla raised an argument that he has heard, and refuted it. You also have argued for the point he refuted. Looks like a debate to me.
What moral issue?
You have a point there, and the OP addressed it:
That is also something the judge would take into account in sentencing. But so what? It’s the same crime.
You’ll note that my original response in this thread was exactly one word long.
I’ve spent the rest of the thread trying to understand why the argument that Libby’s perjury was worse is so important to some. What is gained from it?