Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Do you think perjury should be considered a serious offence?
|
Yes.
In the case of Clinton, I think that after he left office, the relevant prosecuting authorities (i.e., the AUSA or DA for the appropriate jurisdiction) should have filed charges against him, if their practice was to file charges for perjury in a deposition in a civil case. If that was not their practice, but they wanted to make an example of Clinton for the purpose of deterring perjury in the future, they should have done so but made that very clear.
I also think that the disbarment proceedings, which I believe ended with the equivalent of a plea bargain or settlement, were appropriate.
The problem I have with your theory -- that this was necessary to the integrity of the legal system -- is that I haven't seen anyone call for increased prosecutions of people who lie at deposition, and I doubt that anyone really intends to. I don't think anyone would have read a successful impeachment of Clinton, followed by prosecution, as anything but power politics. No one would have thought "oh, gee.... if I lie at my deposition I might end up in jail like Clinton," because he was so clearly receiving treatment far beyond what anyone else would have received for the same conduct.
And yes, I'm aware that the Repubs found four people who were actually prosecuted for perjury in civil cases. As shifty said, what's the denominator? And in what jurisdictions?
Quote:
|
What laws did Bush break?
|
I wasn't having a Bush v. Clinton discussion with you, just questioning your statement that lying is okey-dokey, or at least couldn't possibly be a crime, if it's not under oath. Because that statement was flat-out wrong.
And Monday is too early for the "he lied to Congress" "no he didn't -- he really, really thought there was conclusive, irrefutable evidence of WMDs in Iraq" discussion.
