Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I'm arguing Clinton committed no "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" within the meaning of Article II, Section 4, which is the standard that applies.
Clinton lied and he should not have. I have not formed an opinion on the materiality of that lie, which I understand is an element of a perjury offense under the governing law. I know others have, and the view of the matter splits, unsurprisingly, on party lines. He lost his bar ticket as a result, presumably because the regulation of the profession requires that we not split hairs over materiality in licensure proceedings as we do under the criminal laws.
Even if a jury would have found materiality, I'm not sure that justified impeachment, or un-justifies the Senate acquittal. Johnson broke the law, too, in the sense that his firing of Stanton violated the law; he was also acquitted by the Senate.
|
I don't think anyone wants to rehash this debate, but:
1. I think materiality should be judged in connection with the case that procurred the lie. If my memory serves me, the case was thrown out after he lied under oath. Query whether the same result would have been reached had he told the truth.
2. I understand why he lied - it's very human in that situtation. But I also think it is really, really wrong - especially to the plaintiff. Whether he should have been thrown out of office, in hindsite, I don't know. But I think the impeachment was appropriate to at least slap the wrist and give faith in our system that no one is above the law.
