Lethal Lynx:
Innocent until proven guilty. Around here, we don’t assume people would break the law if we didn’t see evidence to suggest that they might already have.
Just because Clinton chose to lie under oath rather than face the consequences of his own actions (whatever they may have been, as the case ended up being settled rather than brought to trial) does not mean that other people, given the same circumstances would make that choice as well.
I’m sorry, I forget. Which court convicted William J. Clinton of lying under oath? 
I believe I have just as much evidence for claiming that, for example, Ronald Reagan and George Bush connived at breaking U.S. law (in particular the Borland Amendment) by agreeing to financially support Nicaraguan rebels.
Arnold:
Well, I’ve been in numerous discussions here as to whether or not Clinton could be said to have been guilty of perjury. Those debates generally centered on whether or not his lies were material, and whether or not it was appropriate for the court to have asked him those questions. I have yet to find anyone who does not think that he has indeed lied under oath.
And granted, no court has convicted Clinton of lying under oath. That could be because since the materiality was never established prior to the case being settled, it was not criminal (possibly). However, the evidence to suggest he did so is there. The poster I was responding to implied with no evidence that a politician he simply disagrees with would lie under oath.
Chaim Mattis Keller
cmkeller: I will agree with you that Clinton deliberately tried to be evasive and hide the facts in his testimony. As far as perjury, I’m not convinced but I will be willing to admit the possibility.
I do notice however that the outrage at the misdeeds of our politicians is often coloured by our political preference (I’m as guilty as that as anyone else.) For example, I view the case of Iran-Contra (the president making a deliberate decision to secretly override a law adopted by Congress, thus attempting to circumvent the limits set to his power by the Constitution) a far more egregious offence than Bill Clinton attempting to cover up a marital infidelity. However the republicans who denounce Clinton are often curiously silent on this point. And of course, democrats will act in a similar fashion.
What the majority of people have failed to realize throughout this whole thing is that Clinton is the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Military and therefore subject to the military code of conduct… A fact he reminds all military members of when signing the order to fire a military member(regardless of rank) when found guilty of adultery, or when accused of sexual misconduct/harassment(even when the charges were found to be false)… If he didn’t outright fire someone, he would send a letter, full of all the ways said member had ‘humiliated the branch of the military he served in’, and “requested” that they retire early…
So basically, it’s ok for the leader of the armed forces to cheat on his wife then lie about it publicly; but god forbid the commander of an aircrew is ever falsely accused of seducing some girl who’s looking for a quick transfer… He’s guaranteed a court-martial and a letter from Billy “asking” him to retire…
I won’t even go through the thousands of young men who were forced to drop a career because thier wives either caught them cheating, or decided they weren’t happy living in some god-forsaken part of the world…
Lethal Lynx wrote:
I doubt the current American economy was Clinton’s doing.
It is well understood that the armed forces have a strict code of conduct, stricter than that required of their civilian overseers. Using the same argument, one could postulate that an openly gay person should not become president. The armed forces have chosen to adopt rules that are stricter than what is enforced by USA law. I don’t think it necessarily follows that any civilian who in our democratic system has some form of authority over the armed forces needs to obey the same rules.
AntiNorn said:
Nope, sorry. The President is not now, not ever, punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The President is not a member of the military (although he can have been), he is the civilian commander of the military forces. You are simply incorrect about this, and it is not remotely debatable.
If you want to argue that Clinton is a hypocrite, fine, but he is not punishable under military justice.
tracer:
No, it isn’t, but you can bet your ass that if it had taken a nosedive anytime between 1992-2000, many conservatives would be falling all over themselves in a frenzy to blame him.
Lethal Lynx said:
They do when it’s under oath, as Tennessee Ben already noted. “[N]ormal citizens” don’t get to lie under oath and get away with it.
And the rank hypocrisy the Democrats have shown over this whole mess pisses meoff. The only actual defense of Clinton they really ever came up with was to whine “well theywould have done it too!” and “Reagan/Nixon/Millard Fillmore lied!” Monkey see, monkey do, right? Well, don’t expect me to vote for monkeys.
Asmodeus said:
Since the “man who actually went to serve in the Nam” (as a journalist, I believe–he wasn’t a combat soldier) has spent the past eight years as second banana to the Man Who Avoided The Whole Unpleasantness, I expect he’s overcome his aversion to non-military types in politics.
Well I personally am not a Democrat. But the extenuating circumstances I grant president Clinton is that it’s no great crime to try to hide a private consensual sexual relationship. If he were a teacher in a high school accused of having sex with one of the students, that would be one thing. But having an affair with an adult woman (who admittedly flirted with him and consented to the relationship) is not really relevant to his job performance IMHO.
Reagan consenting to an attempt to circumvent a law passed by Congress in the exercise of his duties is a whole different ballgame (assuming of course that Ronald Reagan actually did approve of this.) I think that it’s important to remember that not all misdeeds are equally serious.
Arnold Winkelried said:
You’re missing the point, Arnold. I don’t care whether Clinton had sex with his interns, or with his mother, or with a water buffalo–that in itself is neither my business nor my problem, and it has nothing in particular to do with his fitness to hold the office of president.
BUT…once it became the subject of a lawsuit, and once he lied under oath and was found out, then he should have been subject to all the penalties for perjury that you or I would be–the question asked by the OP, though obviously not the answer the OP wanted. It doesn’t matter whether the question should have been asked; it is not Bill Clinton’s place to decide that, unless it would also be myplace to decide it if I was asked a question that I didn’t like under oath. It’s the whole “nation of laws” thing that the US supposedly represents–the law is supposed to apply equally to everyone, from the president down to the homeless guy on the street. Yes, I know it frequently doesn’t work that way…but the only defense of Clinton is that it shouldn’twork that way. And if the law doesn’t even theoretically apply to everybody, there’s no use having laws to begin with.
The day will come when it’s a Republican in the box again, and then the Democrats will show their hypocrisy–they’ll be yelling for the guy’s head, trying to ignore their own precedent. Of course, the Republicans will hypocritically defend their own…and then both parties will profess puzzlement at why the public increasingly regards them all as slime.
There’s seem to be a consensus among some people here that what they really didn’t like about the whole scandal was Clinton perjuring himself. So I ask, if defending your privacy from unwarranted questioning isn’t acceptable, under what circumstances could perjury BE acceptable? Or are there no conditions in which perjury is acceptable?
Bonus question: could someone please quote exactly what Clinton said that made him a perjurer?
John, the NSA doesn’t tap people’s phone lines, that’s the FBI. The NSA is a bunch of computer dorks who like to crack secret codes.
Anyhoo, I think the President should be held to the same standards as anyone else who works in a professional environment. That means he shouldn’t go boinking the interns.
Whether or not this means impeachment is debatable. Obviously there are some corporations and government agancies that have stricter policies towards sexual misconduct. (This wasn’t sexual harassment, a whole other issue, as far as I can tell.)
And in other countries, it’s widely known that their leaders have mistresses. (I don’t remember where I read that, but I did) and it’s not considered a big deal.
Under what circumstances can you plead the fifth amendment, and if you do that instead of lying under oath, does that convict you in the eyes of the court anyway?
friedo…
just a few links about the NSA
http://www.mega.nu:8080/cm/cm1.html
http://techlawjournal.com/courts/echelon/Default.htm
http://www.fas.org/irp/nsa/standards.html
http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~nhughes/htmldocs/nsa.html
this is the NSA handbook
there are many many more out there.
Lethal Lynx said:
There are no conditions in which it is *legal,*which is the point. As for “unwarranted questioning,” the defendent/witness doesn’t get to make that call…at least not if he or she is not Bill Clinton, which leads us back to the differing standards.
Clinton made statements under oath (in the Paula Jones sexual harrassment case against him, and later to the grand jury investigating the whole thing) to the effect that he hadn’t had sex with Monica Lewinsky–statements that he himself later admitted were false.
(Spare me the “he thought it was sex only if the USS Willie’s Willieactually entered the Tunnel Of Love” line–that’s as bogus as Gore claiming that all the illegal stuff must have been discussed while he was in the bathroom.)
It was the Jones case which led Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright to find Clinton in contempt of court and fine him $90,000 for giving “false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process.” Wright specified civil rather than criminal contempt, to preserve the option of prosecuting Clinton once he leaves office.
See:
http://www.apbnews.com/newscenter/majorcases/clinton/2000/04/11/clinton0411_01.html
friedo said:
That’s not the point, though Clinton and his defenders certainly did a good job of obscuring the issue with it. As I’ve said before, I don’t really care who or what he was boinking.
Spider Woman said:
Not really my area, but the Fifth Amendmend reads, in pertinent part:
which means there must be at least potential criminal charges involved.
As for whether it convicts you, the answer would be no…but the trier of fact (the jury, or the judge in a non-jury trial) is gonna know about it, and it may very well color their views.
(Note that “taking the Fifth” is probably more common for witnesses who are not on trial, since defendents cannot be compelled to testify in criminal matters–it would be stupid to take the stand only to refuse to say anything.)
“There are no conditions in which it is legal,which is the point…”
Yes, but you didn’t answer my question. Perhaps I should rephrase it.
Under what circumstances do you think could perjury be acceptable?
I realize that everybody is going to have different answers, that’s why I asked the question.
“Spare me the ‘he thought it was sex only if the USS Willie’s Willieactually entered the Tunnel Of Love’ line”
But that was my point. If it techniquely wasn’t a lie, then techniquely it wasn’t perjury. No doubt the guy is slippery, but you said you only cared about that fact that he perjured himself.
Lethal Lynx said:
What do you mean by “acceptable?” Do you mean circumstances under which I myself would commit perjury? If so, I’ve never really thought about it. But if I did, for whatever reason, and was caught, I would get slammed. Do I find that appropriate? Yes, I do.
My point is that I don’t for a minute believe Bill Clinton believed that–whatever else he may be, he isn’t stupid. He knew damn well what the questions meant, and he knew damn well he was lying. As did the judge who fined him $90,000 for the civil part of it.