Yet Another Clinton Perjury Thread

[Bricker]

In an effort to stop the hijack of the WMD thread…

Clinton / perjury / Paula Jones / grand jury.

What can be said?

Well, here’s what I’ll say.

Mr. Clinton was never indicted or convicted of perjury. If that is your argument, I cheerfully agree.

However, sufficient evidence exists that, had he been tried, a jury could have convicted him. In other words, if he HAD been convicted, and appealed the conviction based on insufficiency of the evidence, that appeal would have failed. Based on the “record,” an apellate court would not reverse the conviction because there was insufficient evidence.

Now - if anyone wishes to debate THAT POINT, I’m here.

Note that I am not debating, “Well, in the real world, no one expect Mr. Clinton would ever be charged in that circumstance.” Nor am I debating, “Well, a jury would realize that the prosecution was a hack job, and they’d never convict.”

I am simply saying that a jury could rely on Monica Lewinsky’s testimony, and the fact that it differed materially from Bill Clinton’s, and use that to find him guilty. I am, therefore, also not going to debate, “Well, Monica couild have lied about X.”

Sure, she could have. “It’s just he said, she said.” Well, as it happens, criminal convictions can be secured on “He said, she said,” if the jury believes one of the sayers.

Everyone got it?

Anyone want to debate?

• Rick

[PhuQan_G_Nyus]

personally I find it all pretty trivial. Especially compared with Bush lying to the entire nation with a WAR as the result!

As far as lying goes, compared with Bush, Clinton is an amateur.

[Bricker]

Well, that’s a great post, PhuQan G Nyus, for IMHO. But it’s not a GD post, is it? No one asked you to reply to this topic by listing things you find trivial. This is not a poll.

If you disagree with the proposition offered in the OP, then speak up.

[Fear_Itself]

Wow, the economy must be worse than I thought, when the Bushistas start flogging this dead horse again.

[John_Mace]

Bricker:

Wasn’t Clinton banned from practicing law in Arkansas for “x” number of years on those charges? Seems there’s already evidence that at some level the legal proffession found there to be some smoke, if not fire, there. Correct me if I’m wrong on this.

[Bricker]

Fear Itself: the discussion arose from a hijack in this thread. And do you consider me a “Bushista?” Even if you do, what relevance does that have to the OP?

John Mace: Yes, as part of the deal in avoiding prosecution, Mr. Clinton surrendered his law license. But that doesn’t mean he committed perjury: a lawyer has an ethical duty of candor to a tribunal, a standard far more exacting than perjury. In other words, Mr. Clinton could have testified in a way that was not perjurious and yet still acted unethically enough to warrant attorney discipline. In short, that proves nothing for the purposes of this thread.

• Rick

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Bricker maybe you addressed this in the other thread already (I haven’t checked it in a while) but what about the fact that the lie must be about a material fact in the case in order for it to be perjury? How was a consensual slob job, several years after the incident alleged in the PJ lawsuit, a material fact?

BTW If my grandma had a dick she’d be my grandpa. “If’s” don’t mean very much.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I posted this in the other thread, but I’ll just paste it here too rather than just paraphrasing the exact same thing:

I concede that you have proven that perjury in the PJ case, if proven, would constitute a federal crime. I stll contend, however, that the “lie” alleged in the case was not of sufficient materiality for a perjury charge to obtain. It is certainly no slam dunk, at least that a jury would be persuaded of it.

[Northern_Piper]

Bricker, just to clarify, am I right that you’re putting both federal proceedings on the table in this debate: the alleged perjury in the Paula Jones case, and the alleged perjury before the grand jury, when he was questioned about his relationship with Ms Lewinsky?

If so, then I would suggest, Diogenes, that the question of fellatio by Ms. Lewinsky would indeed be a material fact in the second matter, since the perjury allegation in that case was that he had denied a sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, as alleged in the First Article of Impeachment.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

For your edification, Diogenes, I give you Judge Wright’s contempt order dated April 12, 1999 (warning: big PDF on a pokey server – I can email it to you if you like). Please pay particular attention to footnote 7.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I forgot what a load of garbage that impeachment resolution was. I notice that it doesn’t specify what he said to the grand jury that was a lie, I believe they tried to say that he got his lawyer, bob bennet to lie by saying “There is no sexual relationship” between BC and ML. A statement which was true on its face. At the time Bennet said it the relationship was over, so it was true in the present tense. ("…definition of ‘is’…").

What, specifically, is BC alleged to have said before the grand jury that wasn’t truthful?

[Tejota]

Very well Bricker It’s about time you put up some specifics on your claim that Clinton lied under oath.

I’ve read the transcript of the Paula Jones deposition, and of the Grand Jury testimony. And I can tell you that there are no demonstrable lies by Clinton in either of those two documents.

The notion that Clinton lied under oath is RNC spin. It is not truth. I’ve no doubt that many of the spin-meisters at the RNC know that it isn’t the truth. But their job is to create perceptions, not to tell the truth.

I’ve read the transcript, and I can tell you that the notion that Clinton committed perjury is laughable.

If you have actually read these documents, and have seen in them the evidence to back up your assertion that Clinton lied under oath, then by all means; Show us the statements from that transcript that are lies.

Here’s a starting point for many of the relevant documents

http://www.time.com/time/daily/scandal/documents/

Take your time. I’ll be back when there’s something substantive to address here.

[Tejota]

*Originally posted by Northern Piper *
If so, then I would suggest, Diogenes, that the question of fellatio by Ms. Lewinsky would indeed be a material fact in the second matter, since the perjury allegation in that case was that he had denied a sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, as alleged in the First Article of Impeachment. **

And Clinton was telling the truth, given the definition of sexual relationship that was in effect during that deposition. A definition that he did not choose but was required by law to honor. Ironically, if Clinton had that he had a sexual relationship with Lewinski in that deposition. That would have been a lie.

If you read the transcript, what is truly remarkable is how poorly Council phrased their questions. Almost as if they didn’t really want to know about the relationship, but instead wanted to trap him into an aparent lie. Or maybe they were just incompetent. One can never be sure.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Bricker I can’t seem to get anything from your link. Could you please enlighten me as to what Judge Wright said in footnote 7? I know it can’t be a finding of material perjury since that’s for a jury to decide in an actual trial, not a judge in a footnote of a contempt order.

Also what did BC say to the grand jury that was a lie?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I can’t believe that stupid “sexual relationship” question is what Republicans in congress, with a straight face, tried to pretend amounted to an impeachable offense. That whole episode looks even more transparently political and childish in retrospect than it did back then.

Starr’s Evil Minion: Is there a sexual relationship with you and ML?

BC: NO

SEM: Didn’t she blow you once?

BC: Yeah, but she’s not blowing me any more.

SEM: So you DO have a sexual relationship!

BC: No, you moron, I don’t.

SEM: But you said she slobbed your Johnson!

BC: She DID, but she isn’t any more.

SEM: And now you’re saying there isn’t any sexual relationship?

BC: There isn’t, you half-wit. There WAS and now there isn’t.

SEM, Ken Starr, congress Republicans: PERJURY, PERJURY, PERJURY!

Ken Starr: Citizen’s array-est! Citizen’s array-est!

What a miserable waste of time and money.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic *
**Bricker I can’t seem to get anything from your link. Could you please enlighten me as to what Judge Wright said in footnote 7? I know it can’t be a finding of material perjury since that’s for a jury to decide in an actual trial, not a judge in a footnote of a contempt order. **

1. That was me, not Bricker.

2. Try here. It’s a PDF and quite lengthy, so I’d rather not type the whole thing in.

[Bricker]

Diogenes:

As to materiality, you have claimed repeatedly that the testimony was not material. Judge Wright did not agree. The court found as follows:

…this Court did not rule that evidence of the Lewinsky matter was irrelevant or immaterial to the issues in plaintiff’s case… this Court made the decision to disallow discovery as to Ms. Lewinsky and to exclude evidence from her at trial, not because the Court considered such evidence to be irrelevant or immaterial, but because its admission would frustrate the timely resolution of this case and cause undue expense and delay…

Now, of course, an appellate court hearing a perjury charge may well have decided differently. But that never happened. The fact remains that the matter was found material by the trial judge’s direct ruling. The Court had ruled prior to the President’s deposition that the palintiff could inquire as to “any individuals with whom the President had had sexual relations or proposed or sought to have sexual relations and who were during the relevant time frame state or federal employees.” (See December 11, 1997 Order at (3).)

When the plaintiff propounded the first question about Ms. Lewinsky, the President, through his counsel, objected. The Court overruled that objection and required that the President answer each and every such question. (See President’s Deposition at 53-55, 66, 78).

Let’s stop right here, then, and resolve the question of materiality.

Does this show materiality? In other words, am I concealing any fact that negates the materiality of this line of inquiry and these questions?

• Rick

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Oops, thanks, Dewey. (Sorry Bricker)

OK so it says that the court might have allowed the ML angle into evidence in the PJ trial. It doesn’t say she would have, she only says that it was undecided. As I said, it’s not for the judge to decide if the materiality was perjurous. That’s for a jury.

[Bricker]

Ah, but remember the purpose of this thread!

If your argument is that a jury never decided that the issue was material, then I agree!

What I am proving in this thread is that, IF a jury had decided Mr. Clinton perjured himself, and if he appealed that verdict on the basis of sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate review of the record would result in the conviction being affirmed.

In other words, you’re right: the fact is for a jury to decide. Mr. Clinton is NOT guilty of perjury. I said as much in the OP.

But the ruling I cite above is sufficient ground for a jury to decide that the issue was material. They could reach that decision on this record, as a matter of law.

Agreed?

• Rick

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

Diogenes, Bricker: You may be interested in this seminar paper analyzing the perjury issue. I wrote it as a law student for a seminar on the Independent Counsel Statute. It isn’t perfect – time and experience have shown me ways I could have improved it – but I think it’s pretty good. FWIW, I got an A from the prof, a state appellate judge.

N.B.: This was written shortly after the Starr Report appeared, so it does not contain data from subsequent events.