We have now moved to Great Debates, and slightly away from the OP, which asks if Bush will pardon Clinton; presumably, the the correct topic now is, “Should Bush Pardon Clinton?”
It’s true that perjury must be (1) a statement, (2) under oath, (3) on any material thing or matter.
Clinton made false statements under oath on two different occasions. You may argue that the first, during the discovery process of the Paula Jones lawsuit, consisted of an immaterial thing or matter, since the judge ultimately ruled that, for purposes of the suit, the truth of her allegations was irrelevant.
However, that ruling did not exist when the grand jury was convened for the purpose of investigating Mr. Clinton’s lies. At that time, it was unclear how material his statements were, and the grand jury certainly had a reasonable basis to ask the questions again. His statements under oath to the grand jury were thus material; the grand jury was investigating a criminal matter, and the truth of his earlier statements was directly relevant and material.
His statements to the grand jury were thus clearly perjurious.
As I have said earlier, however, I do not believe that instance of perjury warrants criminal prosecution. Were he a private citizen placed in the same position, rather than a public figure, I don’t believe any prosecutor would seek a perjury conviction. I do believe the perjury forms sufficient basis for his disbarment, and I felt that it formed sufficient basis for his impeachment, and even his conviction by the Senate. Obviously, Congress did not agree with me.
So to reiterate: yes, it was perjury, and if necessary, yes, Bush should pardon Clinton; the pardon will undo the injustice of the man being punished as a criminal when others, similarly situated, would not be.
- Rick