Impeachment --- expensive distraction?

[elwoodblues]

I read the following in an editorial today:

"While we are being told that terrorist threats could not be adequately monitored by the FBI because of a shortage of personnel, let's remember that, during the late 1990s, more than 200 FBI agents were assigned to investigate President Clinton's personal life..."

This should probably be considered a criticism of both Clinton and his opposition (Clinton shouldn't have done it and his opposition focused on it too much). Were priorities misplaced to such an extent that focusing on more urgent matters was impossible? How many hours of every day do you think were consumed in the White House dealing with the impeachment? Those hours could have been better spent (of course, there's no way to know HOW those hours would have been spent, but they certainly could have been spent in a more productive way.) One of the reasons, in my mind, that the impeachment standard is/should be so great is exactly this --- we don't want to distract the Executive branch with triviality when there are much more pressing matters to attend to.

[adios]

FWIW good topic, good post.

[ QUOTE ]
Were priorities misplaced to such an extent that focusing on more urgent matters was impossible?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure to catch some flak for this but yes I think so. I think this had a polarizing effect and helped create the divide between the two parties today.


[ QUOTE ]
How many hours of every day do you think were consumed in the White House dealing with the impeachment?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know but I think it precluded any kind of bold action by Clinton.

[ QUOTE ]
One of the reasons, in my mind, that the impeachment standard is/should be so great is exactly this --- we don't want to distract the Executive branch with triviality when there are much more pressing matters to attend to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. You're probably going to catch some flak from some (not me though) that lying to a grand jury is not trivial. I question the whole Kenneth Starr investigation; it's usefulness and it's real purpose. I still believe that Starr's questioning Clinton about Lewinsky under oath seems to be, for lack of a better term, "over the top." I might as well catch some of the flak too /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The biggest error in the Clinton impeachment was the original decision by the Supreme Court to allow the Paula Jones case to ge forward during Clinton's presidency.

The thought that a sitting President, *any* sitting President, could be brought to trial on a civil matter that occurred prior to his presidency is ridiculous. The court made a huge error on that one.

The impeachment itself was a perfect example of the Constitution at work. The founding fathers left the definition of an impeachable offense vague, allowing it to be for political, as well as criminal, reasons. Sort of like the no-confidence vote in parliamentary democracies.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I still believe that Starr's questioning Clinton about Lewinsky under oath seems to be, for lack of a better term, "over the top." I might as well catch some of the flak too

Actually the judge eventually ruled that the Lewinsky line of questioning was not germane to the issue at hand. Thus, by the strict legal definition, Clinton did not commit perjury.

[J.R.]

Relevance has no bearing on perjury. Perjury occurs when one testifies to the turth of a matter they do not believe to be true while under oath, regardless of the relevance of the information they are testifiying to the truth of.

18 U.S.C. 1621: "Whoever- having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true."

[elwoodblues]

I think he was arguing that it wouldn't be a "material matter" if it is not germane.

[J.R.]

I know, but as this was grand jury testimony, the definition of what is material is very broad since the point of grand jury testimony is to get at facts that will allow the grand jury to determine whether charges should be brought, not whether the testimony will prove matters directly at issue. I see his point, and agree that there is an argument concerning materiality, but the legal test of materiality in a grand jury proceeding under the federal perjury statute, whether right or wrong, is:

"A knowingly false statement to a grand jury is material and sufficient upon which to base a prosecution for perjury if it has a natural tendency to influence, impede, or dissuade the grand jury from pursuing its investigation, and it is not necessary that a truthful answer would actually have made the inquiry more successful. U S v. Bonanno, 177 F.Supp. 106 (S.D.N.Y. 1959)."

[MaxPower]

Isn't it the case the Clinton bombed a facility in Afghanistan in an attempt to kill Bin Laden. Isn't it also true that Clinton's enemies accused him of using that bombing to distract people from the Monica Lewinsky affair.

So Clinton was hampered by the investigation. Clinton himself bears much of the responsibility for this, but so do some on the Right who put partisan politics before the nations security.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Read your quote. If the line of questioning is deemed by the judge to be immaterial, then the false testimony does not meet the test for perjury.

The bottom line is (and here I revert to being the wild-eyed libertarian) that just because you're summoned to testify and sworn in does not give either the prosecution or the defense the right to ask anything they want.

[J.R.]

I agree with you sentiment concering privacy and the proper scope of a criminal testimony. However, I think we both have the facts a little screwy. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

The judge in Paula Jones' civil sexual harrasment lawsuit ruled that Clinton's Jan 17, 1998 deposition testimony in Jones' civil suit (where Clinton testified in response to questions from Jones' lawyers about his relations with Lewinsky) was inadmissable in the Paula Jones' civil suit not because the Lewinsky affair was irrelevant, immaterial or not germane but because any value the evidence from the Lewinsky matter might have to Paula Jones's case was overridden by the chance that it might interfere with Starr's criminal investigation. So the Jones' judge did not rule the Lewinsky matter was irrelevant, immaterial or not germane to Jones' civil sexual harrasment suit.

Nonetheless, Starr's perjury charge was dealt a blow by the ruling of the Jones' civil judge because while the Jones' Judge didn't say the Lewinsky matter was immaterial, her refusal to permit the Lewinsky matter to be introduced in the Jones' civil trial made it harder for prosecutors to prove the Lewinsky mattter was material for a perjury conviction.

So Starr pushed onward and called Clinton before Starr's grand jury which was investigating the president pursuant to Starr's power as special prosecutor. Starr asked Clinton about the Lewsinsky affair to set Clinton up for perjury in this grand jury testimony. Clinton's statements to Starr in this Aug 17, 1998 grand jury proceeding were a basis for arguing Clinton was guilty of perjury that was separate from any perjury that might have arisen in the January Jones' deposition testimony.

In regards to grand jury testimony, materiality is very broad as there is no real "issue" at hand because a grand jury is basically a very open-ended, loose fishing expidition for any type of criminal behavior. No judge ever ruled on the materiality of anything that occurred in Starr's grand jury because criminal charges were never filed based on anything that came out of this grand jury testimony.

The judge in Jones' civil suit made a ruling pertaining to the admissability of Clinton's deposition testimony in Jones' civil suit (not a ruling that such testimony was immaterial), but no such ruling came out of Clinton's grand jury testimony.

The House of Representatives never considered Clinton's testimony in the Jones deposition in its impeachment indictment, the basis for Clinton's impeachment was Clinton's grand jury testimony (although much of the grand jury testimony tried to get around the potential weakness of the perjury claims arising out of the Jones' deposition by asking Clinton what he testified to in the Jones deposition and whether Clinton's deposition tetsimony in the Jones case was truthful).

Just before leaving office, Clinton made a deal to be suspended from the practice of law for 5 years and to pay a 25K fine in return for independent counsel Robert Ray's decision to drop any plans to indict Clinton on criminal perjury charges after Clinton leaves office. So its not clear whether Clinton's grand jury testimony was criminal perjury under 18 USC 1621.