So what was the criminal case against Bill Clinton?

Great Debates
81

It should be obvious to even the most casual observer that “covering up a break-in at a hotel” is an actual crime. Specifically, obstruction of justice and conspiracy, which is exactly what the Watergate special prosecutor noted that Nixon could possibly be indicted for just before Ford pardoned him. And exactly what other indicted Watergate conspirators were charged with. And exactly what was in the Articles of Impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee in the summer of 1974.

Lying at a press conference is not a crime, nor is it violative of the Oath of Office.

Are there really people this dense?

82

::sigh:: The Ryan, the Oath of Office does not require the President to be “faithful” to anything, except to his duties as President The phrase is “faithfully execute the office of president of the United States”

The President swears that he will faithfully do his job. He does not swear to be truthful.

Sua

83

Where to start?

Bricker, regarding your protestations over intellectual honesty: Although you might think you answered the question by coming down on both sides of it, a useful tactic for not avoiding being proven wrong, a real-life prosecutor and judge and jury don’t have that luxury. A case is either filed or not filed, and either heard or dismissed, and a jury must find either guilty or not guilty. Surely you’re capable of reaching a conclusion and standing behind it as well. Your own summary of the case was “he said, she said”, and evenly granted reasonability to both views. That makes much more than reasonable doubt. But, unless I’ve been watching too much TV, reasonable doubt means No. Period. All I did was cut through your waffling and go straight to the conclusion that your own argument makes inevitable, although for a reason best known to yourself you can’t quite make yourself say it.

I’m still waiting for an answer, btw, to what a judge would say if you filed the case you described. “I believe he’s guilty”, as you said, won’t cut it if that’s the strongest argument you can present. I can discuss “intellectual honesty” as long as you like, if you’d care to get down from that fence.

To anyone wanting to pursue the “caused to happen” argument: Please consider who flashed the thong panties at whom, and who knelt in front of whom. The incident was not harassment, despite the efforts of Starr’s staff to suborn Lewinsky into saying so in that locked hotel room. He knew that all along, and that made it the incident immaterial to the Jones case and to the Scaife lawyers with whom Starr’s staff was colluding in the entrapment plan. So much for materiality, m’kay?

TheRyan and others, this thread is specifically about the lack of a criminal case. If you’d like to discuss political matters instead, there are countless open threads available for that, or feel free to start another. Thank you.

Hamlet, you may not like my tone, but I certainly don’t like either the tone or the lack of substance with which the Clinton-haters tried to overthrow democracy itself here. Bullshit arguments do not deserve pleasant responses - part of that “fighting ignorance” stuff, ya know. Now, if you have some facts or reasoning or insight of your own to present, let’s have it. Simple “me too” posts like yours are not in keeping with board etiquette.

Milossarian, good to see you again, you old fish in a barrel, you! Still tossing out schoolyard-level personal abuse in lieu of substantive arguments, I see. Pity. But the Washington Post table you so thoughtfully provided, in a rare moment of topicality, makes the lack of a substantive case quite clear, doesn’t it?

Recall that it’s the culmination of a seven-year, $40 million campaign to find something, anything, to stick in court. Starr said repeatedly that he had the right to file criminal charges against a sitting President, yet he didn’t - and couldn’t even make a simple declarative statement about it without that weaseling about “seems to suggest” and “may have” and so forth. That isn’t a prosecutor’s brief; it’s a simple smear.

So, the OP simply asked for what lie was told and how it constitutes perjury - and the best legal minds known to SDMB (except for the one whose hijack of another thread inspired this one) can’t state it simply enough to be convincing beyond a reasonable doubt, or beyond even a 50/50 shot.

84

I never said it was a crime. Having fun attacking that strawman?

85

No, you compared “covering up a hotel break-in” to “lying at a press conference” as both being violative of the oath of office. Except you can’t compare them, because one is a crime, and one is not; therefore one is violative of the oath, and one is not.

86

Elvis, I have to wonder if you actually read Bricker’s posts without having already decided what the answer to your question would be? I seem to recall this:

and this:

These seem to me to be saying that, well, gee, the evidence exists to get a conviction. His other comments add that of course whether there would be a conviction or not depends on the jury. I would assume this is because, well, it’s always up to the jury to decide, and as Bricker isn’t part of that jury, of course he cannot make the definitive statement “the jury would convict.” Also, characterizing his position as “He said, she said” ignores this:

In other words, it’s not just “he said, she said,” it’s “he said, she said, and the physical evidence backs up her side, without being absolute 100% proof.” Of course, you have no 100% proof that I’m not a penguin, either; therefore, if you say I’m not and I say I am, it’s “you said, I said,” and a reasonable jury could decide either way… snort

As an aside, as Bricker is a lawyer, as I recall, I think it’s safe to assume that he does indeed understand how the legal system works, and doesn’t need your insightful commentary to explain it to him.

Lastly, I don’t suppose you would mind explaining to those of us who are slower of wit than you (owing to our penguin-ness) how the Washington Post’s table makes the lack of substantive case quite clear? It looks to me to clearly say that Clinton has lawyers who presented a defense, but I don’t see why this implies that there is clearly no case. Certainly there may not be; given that I didn’t follow Monica-gate then and don’t really care now either, I couldn’t say. But I think your point would be better served by actually adressing issues rather than either saying, in essence, “Hah! Hah! You’re wrong, and it’s obvious!” or just ignoring them entirely.

87

Elvis

**
Insult away. I’d expect nothing more from you.

Seems to me the WP table doesn’t reach any conclusions at all.

And given that [sub]taps mic[/sub] ::ahem, is this thing on?:: Clinton himself admits to having crossed the line into testifying falsely and in an illegal manner, the point is somewhat moot.

Were I to have to venture a guess, it would have to be with whether he had sex with Lewinsky, as defined for purposes of the court proceeding.

And/or, whether he was ever alone with Lewinsky.

Clinton’s apparent arguments supporting his answers (i.e., it wasn’t sex, or she had sex but he didn’t, or that there were always other people in the White House when he and she were doing their thang) defy common sense. He can look as earnest as he wants, squint his eyes and bite his lower lip, but he realizes it, too.

If he couldn’t get his dick sucked by Lewinsky during a press conference, then I’d guess he and she were alone when her blue dress got accessorized.

Independent Counsel Robert Ray should have held out for specificity on Clinton’s false and illegal testimony, before agreeing to the pact. But I guess he felt Clinton admitting to it, even through his typical semantic convolutions, was good enough.

88

Tell you what: when all the crimes of J. Edgar Hoover, Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon are exposed and detailed, when their names are expunged from every public building, and thier careers are presented to our schoolchildren as examples of reprehensible behavior…

Get back to me. I’ll be in more of a mood to discuss the “crimes” of William Jefferson Clinton. I figure a round of ice skating across the lakes of Hell will be rather chucklesome.

89

Why did you italicize Jefferson?

90

A reference to the pious, sonorous bloviations of his impeachment. In what appeared to be an attempt to add solemnity and dignity, they would always refer to him by all three names, as it might be read out on an indictment. One of my favorite moments, though it doesn’t compare with Wm. Rehnquist appearing in his (self-designed) Chief Justices robes, with those simply cunning gold stripes! To die for!

That and the image of Newt Gangrene zipping up his pants as he strode from the motel room to condemn the moral failings of the infidels.

91

those “moral failings” being a president trained as a lawyer admittedly not telling the truth during a judicial proceeding.

potato, po-tah-to, tomato, to-mah-to. Let’s call the whole thing off.

92

Well, lets tote it up, shall we, Milo?

Ronnie: sold weapons to our sworn enemies, and, against the explicit orders of Congress, diverted those funds in order to keep a civil war cooking, one which had already taken thousands and thousands of innocent lives. And a few other minor matters.

Free Willy: was accused of everything from drug running to murder, passing through fraud and theft, and finally caught fibbing about sex. Which, given sufficient legal gymnastics, might be inflated to the level of a misdemeanor.

Malfeasance of power, as compared to falsely answering a question he never should have been asked in the first place.

Potato, potato? Is that how they do things on the planet you’re from? In my book of moral equivalence, fomenting and furthering a war (i.e., making people dead) for utterly chickenshit political motives…well, you get the idea.

Given the records of our most recent Presidential vermin, a display of high moral dudgeon over Bill’s Willy is…is…

Sometimes this happens. Words fail me. And there is no smiley for puking yer guts out.

93

I’m just curious … for the folks who are pointing to Bill Clinton’s lying about his sex life as “proof” that he failed in his duties as President, what do y’all make of G. W. Bush lying to the American people about not having prior knowledge or suspicions of terrorist attacks before 9/11?

Surely nobody’s going to say Clinton’s penis merits more outrage than an attack on American soil, are they…?

94

I’m unsure how it is that my posts, which, 'though perhaps not deserving of literary honors, came out as unclear as they apparently did.

To answer you more simply still:

Q: “What was the criminal case against Clinton?”
A: The contradictory testimony of Ms. Lewinsky, and the extraneous physical evidence consistent with her testimony.

Q: Was the evidence strong enough to actually go to trial?
A: Absolutely. In my posts above, I said that if a jury had heard the evidence we’d discussed and convicted Mr. Clinton, an appellate court would not have thrown out the verdict for insufficiency of the evidence. That’s what’s meant by, “…as a matter of law…” the evidence was enough to convict him.

Q: Would Mr. Clinton have actually been convicted, if tried?
A: It’s impossible to say. Of course, it’s impossible to say with certainty that any person will be convicted under any circumstances. If I were the judge at a bench trial, and all the evidence we’ve discussed came before me properly, and no other other were submitted, I would convict Mr. Clinton of perjury. If I were a jury member, and heard all the evidence we discussed, and no other, I’d vote to convict.

Q: But you’re a member of the legal profession. What would a real jury actually do?
A: I hope they’d do the same thing, but history is replete with juries that have defied conventional wisdom. I cannot say with confidence that any possible jury would have convicted him. It’s very possible, for instance, that the jury would ignore the actual law and express their outrage over what they saw as overzealous prosecution, and vote for that reason to acquit.

Q: You’ve said what you’d do as a judge and a juror. What would you have done as a prosecutor? What would you have said to the judge, and to to jury?
A: To the judge, I’d merely say, “Your Honor, the Government is ready for trial, and the evidence we will present more than sustains our burden of proof.”

To the jury, I’d ask them to consider their role in the system. I’d ask them to recall that, as triers of fact, their job was to weigh the veracity of the witnesses, and the value of other evidence, and decide what actually happened. I’d tell them that they may, as a group, have very different feelings about what may have happened between the President and his intern. Some may feel that it’s no one’s business but theirs, while others may feel as though the very idea is morally repugnant. I’d urge them to shelve those feelings on both sides, and decide only if the President lied under oath - not if he was a bad family man, a bad leader, or an unfairly harrassed or maligned man.

Q: What would you have said as a defense lawyer?
A: I would said to the prosecutor, privately, “Look - what do you really want to accomplish here? The man’s out of office already. How about you drop this trial thing, and we agree to a five-year suspension of the law license and a general admission?”

  • Rick
95

Elvis, you’re making yourself look foolish by taking this tack with Rick. Yuor question was whether Clinton committed perjury, not whether he was found guilty. Only a jury can make that decision, and none was ever asked to. As Rick has demonstrated, however, there was more than adequate evidence to bring the charge and to make it stick.

96

elucidator:
Who is making comparisons? You’ll get no argument from me that Iran-Contra was despicable.

**
The line of questioning Clinton faced is certainly debatable. Clinton was involved in a legal proceeding that had to do with sexual harassment of subordinates. A judge allowed it.

You walk a dangerous path, however, when you allow a witness to decide what questions are appropriate to be asked and to answer. Do judges get it wrong? Absolutely. Is it still crucial that the court makes such decisions, and not a witness on a question-by-question basis? Most assuredly.

That’s why people who disagree with your viewpoint simply shake their head and roll their eyes when phrases like “only about sex” and “shouldn’t have been asked anyway” get tossed around.

97

This is an interesting point - Martin Luther King, Jr. ran up against this once. It is set in stone that orders of a court must be obeyed, even if the order is incorrect. When faced with an illegal/incorrect court order, the objecting party’s only option is to appeal - and to obey the order until the appeal is decided. There have been many cases where the appellate court invalidated the order, but affirmed a sentence of contempt on the party who violated the invalidated order.

The concept is simple - while quite obviously judges do make mistakes, it is not the role of the parties to decide on their own when a judge made a mistake.

Sua

98

minty, you know I love ya, man, but not this time. In the absence of a jury, we have a right to answer the question ourselves - and I made the challenge to do so.

Try this, then: If you were the prosecutor or judge, say in a non-jury trial, and had no preconceptions about the defendant (yes, we’re imagining things here), what would you have done? Rick made the point that there was a case for, and a case against, of about equal solidity, but without considering the materiality requirement of the perjury law. That means not guilty, doesn’t it? If the prosecutor knows that up front, does he still present the case?

Bricker, what would your prosecutorial discretion call for? Not every possible case is submitted for trial, or even investigated. If you’re the DA, do you submit this one, based on its origins and materiality and ignoring political considerations? I didn’t ask what you’d say once the trial had started, but if you’d start it.

You did observe that a jury might very well acquit based on a perception of prosecutorial overzealousness. I certainly agree, and would consider that term very mild.

I’m a little puzzled that you’d try to plea-bargain as a defense lawyer, based on the defendant’s being out of office. Is the defendant’s employment status relevant to a criminal proceeding? Or is bringing that up acknowledging that the case was use of the legal system for political harassment? You said you’d ask the prosecutor what his goal was - but it seems clear.

99

Elvis, your latest post asks a completely different question then your OP. You OP is whether the evidence proves the charge of perjury. Bricker has answered that question in a remarkably thorough and even-handed matter.

But now for your latest question:

The question, as it relates to the prosecutor, is almost literally unanswerable in a general sense. Prosecutorial discretion is by definition subjective.
But, as for what I would have done, I can answer that. Had Clinton not been an attorney, I would not have prosecuted. But because he is an attorney, prosecution, IMO, was warranted and required. Attorneys are officers of the court. There obligations, and knowledge, are higher than those of lay persons.

As for the judge in a bench trial, that question is easily answered. The judge would be a poor excuse for one if he/she found Clinton not guilty.

As for a jury, that requires a Great Debate on whether and on what grounds jury nullification is justified. People have been debating that for centuries.

Sua

100

Elvis, your latest post asks a completely different question then your OP. You OP is whether the evidence proves the charge of perjury. Bricker has answered that question in a remarkably thorough and even-handed matter.

But now for your latest question:

The question, as it relates to the prosecutor, is almost literally unanswerable in a general sense. Prosecutorial discretion is by definition subjective.
But, as for what I would have done, I can answer that. Had Clinton not been an attorney, I would not have prosecuted. But because he is an attorney, prosecution, IMO, was warranted and required. Attorneys are officers of the court. There obligations, and knowledge, are higher than those of lay persons.

As for the judge in a bench trial, that question is easily answered. The judge would be a poor excuse for one if he/she found Clinton not guilty.

As for a jury, that requires a Great Debate on whether and on what grounds jury nullification is justified. People have been debating that for centuries.

Sua