Why is perjury an issue? Even if Clinton perjured himself, there is no law that perjury is or isn't an impeachable offense. Even if he didn't perjure himself, he was an attorney --a former law professor! -- who lied to a federal judge, which is stupid and makes him subject to discipline. It's not necessarily impeachable, but impeachable is what Congress says it is.
And why are we going over all of this again? This is six year old gossip.
--- Luke Weiger <lweiger at umich.edu> wrote:
> Michael Dawson wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush