Robert Bork

Lying under oath strikes at the heart of our system of justice and the rule of law. It does not matter in the least what the perjury is about. If a man was charged with lying about a break-in and inducing others to lie, you might, if you were brainless, say the whole thing was just about a "third-rate burglary" and therefore not grounds for impeachment.


We do not say that we care about truth when the subject is murder or drug pushing but care very little when the subject is tampering with witnesses to hide adultery.

(Actually in everyday life, we do say that. This is a bit of sand in the juryman's eyes. An unfair punch that softens us up. It's unnecessary and makes Bork look bad. But he's still right.)



An impeachable offense requires "high Crimes and Misdemeanors," and those, as we are reminded by the words of Alexander Hamilton, are "offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."

Has that standard been met? Not if you are one of those who agree with the President and his legal minions that the charges against the President are "just about sex." That is the line taken by the formerly redoubtable Maureen Dowd, who wrote that Starr had made a case for divorce but not for impeachment. Walter Shapiro concluded that "Clinton's sordid middle-aged misdemeanors do not justify impeachment."

These are almost willful misreadings of what Starr alleged. Not one of the eleven items that Starr thinks are "substantial and credible information that [in the words of the Independent Counsel statute] may constitute grounds for an impeachment" depends upon sex. Five of the counts allege perjury by the President, five allege obstruction of justice, and the final count states that Mr. Clinton's actions have been "inconsistent with the President's constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws."
Sex is not the gravamen of the report but merely the predicate for the cover-up allegations.


It may be counterintuitive, but perjury about sex is as serious as perjury about other matters. Repeated and deliberate lies told under oath are most certainly "injuries done immediately to the society itself". Lying under oath strikes at the heart of our system of justice and the rule of law. It does not matter in the least what the perjury is about.

-----------------------------------------

The American left was mislead. Here's how we got it wrong. In everyday life, lying about sex is appropriate and honorable. But only until the law steps in. That changes everything, because lying under oath is against the law. It does not matter in the least what you're lying about.

It's heartbreaking for the Clintons, but he should have been thrown out of office. It's not fair, but it is tough and follows the law. We were wrong to misunderstand the gravity of Clinton's dilemma. There should have been no way out. From a solid legal standpoint, justice was not done.

We could consider legalizing perjury involving adultery. That makes sense.Prosecuting perjury about a non criminal act does seem inconsistent with the rule of law.

I think Bork is right. Without changing my political philosophy. Clinton was unwise to lie about his affair. Clearly no charges could have been brought for dalliance. How is it that he was not properly advised by his legal staff? Foresight is 20/20 vision when practiced by the best and the brightest.
Clinton's people had to have known then what I know now. You explain it. I can't.

I mean it's straight forward. Even the little Scientology book tells us not to do anything illegal. Like lie under oath. Of course the verdict, his exoneration, was jury nullification. But there is no excuse for him to have taken that chance.