Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
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.
|
I query that as well; I surmise we come up with different answers. But I don't think it hinges on materiality, which is a different standard than mere probitive value. If I lie about thing A, it goes to my credibility on thing B, but it doesn't always make it material within the meaning of perjury law --- it has to be material to the
claim at issue, not the credibility of the witness. Otherwise, every lie under oath would be material, and that ain't so.
Quote:
|
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.
|
What kind of a slap on the wrist do members of this administration deserve, hmmmm? None, I suspect. Personally, I would go for the really rough stuff, but I still don't think it's an impeachment matter. Impeachment isn't about personnel discipline or "sending a message" to make the president straighten up and fly right; it's about hating your horse so much you're willing to change midstream, which right now your party doesn't think is so hot an idea vis-a-vis the current president. Impeachment is bad for the country, but sometimes it's better than the alternative. Not so with Clinton. Even Hank agrees with me on this one.
