> There's no such thing as a "perjury trap." What "MoveOn" source coined
that
> lovely term? In the world of law, they're called "questions under oath."
> If your lawyer can't convince the judge the question is irrelevant to the
> case, you have to answer.
Say plaintiff J is pressing a civil case against defendent C on matter SH. Now suppose that indepedent counsel S (or S's associates) tell J's lawyers that they should ask C about matter BJ (which is totally unrelated to SH) when he's under oath, hoping that he'll lie about it. I'd call that a perjury trap, but then again, I'm just a MoveOn hack.
> On the suit's merit: You did say it mattered. Go back and read your
> original posting.
I'll admit that the following is a bit hard to parse: "You think providing misleading testimony during a civil trial on an issue that ought not even have been broached constitutes an impeachable offense?" However, "the issue that ought not even have been broached" that I was referring to wasn't the civil case itself (though I do think it was probably bullshit) but rather whether Clinton engaged in extramarital liasons.
-- Luke