- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - page 2 of 2
_______________STARR DUST, PUNDIT BUST BY STEVE ERICKSON (11/18/98)
	I wasn't going to respond to Steve Erickson's comment (largely a rhetorical throwaway in his argument) that President Clinton has committed perjury (especially since I've already commented on his essay indirectly). But the issue nags at me. If we are going to all uphold and adhere to the "Rule of Law," then it must be the law we adhere to, not "The law as I understand it to be." And the law is necessarily technical, so the question of whether President Clinton committed perjury either in the Paula Jones case or before a federal grand jury turns on "technicalities." Perjury is not merely lying under oath or, more properly, a misrepresentation made during sworn testimony. President Clinton may not have been forthcoming in his testimony; he may have played word games; he may have tried to hide facts from the prying of Paula Jones' attorneys. This is accepted in a legal proceeding; it goes to the witness's credibility, not his liability under criminal statutes. The remedy is to make the witness look like a lying fool in court; not to run to a prosecuting attorney seeking a criminal indictment. Take the case of Bill Gates and Microsoft: From the press reports alone it is clear that Gates is being disingenuous when he says he doesn't remember conversations, e-mails, signed documents, etc. Is his testimony perjury? The Justice Department doesn't seem to think so; they are more concerned with how it bears on his veracity. Does anyone believe Gates has such a poor memory? Perhaps loyal Microsoft employees do, but surely almost no one else. Will Gates also be prosecuted for perjury? Don't wait around for it. So, did Bill Clinton commit perjury? No. That is a specific crime with specific elements that must be proven. Ken Starr could not prove those elements in a court of law; but he doesn't need to. The rules of evidence and procedure, even constitutional protections, do not apply in an impeachment proceeding. Starr's case is possible only because Bill Clinton is the president. This, I think, is what most Americans understand. And why they are sick of the entire scandal, and want it to end, not with a bang, but a whimper. -- Robert M. Jeffers SALON | Nov. 24, 1998

R E C E N T L Y+| SOWETO ONLINE BY ANDREW LEONARD

If you would like to submit a letter to the editor for publication, please e-mail us at salon@salonmagazine.com. Letters sent by fax or "snail mail" are less likely to be accepted. Do not send attachments. Please include your full name and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours, so we can confirm your identity. This information will not be used for any reason other than verification and will not appear on the site. Letters may be edited for clarity and conciseness. Brief letters are more likely to be published. Place the name of the article you are responding to in the subject heading of your e-mail. If you do not wish your letter to be published, please say so in the subject line. For more information on Salon's letters policy, click here.