From: <IQuark2@aol.com>
To: <xfiles@mindspring.com>
Subject: More RMA's
Date: Monday, September 14, 1998 8:50 PM

Subject: Starr
Date: Mon, Sep 14, 1998 20:46 EDT
From: <A HREF="aol://3548:RonDMoore">RonDMoore</A>

<<Lying under oath - no matter what the charge/reason/query - IS serious, and
cannot be tolerated. This is generally considered to be common ground on most
moral structures.>>

While no one disputes the notion that lying under oath is wrong, I think it's
silly to say that lying about one's weight is the moral or legal equivalent to
lying about accepting a bribe.  In the same vein, it seems unreasonable to
hold that Clinton's lie in his deposition was so grave and so serious as to
warrant impeachment.  

<<if your lie (otherwise known as perjury) was part of the reason for this
dismissal of the suit - how valid is the complaint of lying from the person
bringing the suit? From my understanding, Starr was attempting to show a
pattern of behavior from Clinton in asking about his actions with Lewinsky
(among other women). He denied this relationship, and the case was dismissed.
If he had told the truth in the deposition, would the Paula Jones case
have been so summarily dismissed?>>

As I understand the ruling, the judge in Jones v. Clinton determined that even
if all the charges brought by Paula Jones were true, that her case failed to
meet the legal definition of sexual harassment.  Clinton's statements
regarding Lewinsky were not a factor in her decision.

<<Please note - Impeachment is NOT a criminal trial. It is a political action,
allowing for Congress, through both houses, to remove a President who has
violated the trust of the people by committing "Treason, Bribery, or other
high Crimes and Misdemeanors."... defines misdemeanor as: "a breaking of the
criminal law, not so serious as a felony; a wrong deed; bad behavior,
misconduct.">>

It seems clear by the wording of the Constitution that the "other high crimes
and misdemeanors" not named by the Founding Fathers must at least approach a
level of offense that is on a par with that of treason and bribery, else why
would this particular construction be used?

<<the Grand Jury is not a trial, and no one, including the President of the
United States, is guaranteed the right of counsel in front of one. A Grand
Jury looks to see if there is evidence to make an indictment, which brings
charges, and then brings the matter to trial.>>

There is also the very salient point that the president should not be
subjected to appearing before a grand jury due to the separation of powers in
the first place.  There are real constitutional questions here, such as how
could the judiciary punish a president for failing to appear?  By what right
does the judiciary make itself superior to the executive branch and force it
to appear in the first place?  The president is not just another citizen,
the president the only constitutionally mandated member of the entire
executive branch of government.  He is, in effect, the entire executive
branch.  Given the very real questions here, it seems odd to argue that the
president cannot disagree with the prosecutor in a court of law when the
prosecutor is overreaching his authority in the view of the president.  The
fact that an appeals court sided with Starr should not obviate the right of
the
president to raise the issues of things like executive privilege.

<<The root of the case against Clinton was Sexual Harrassment, a charge Paula
Jones brought against him and may have been borne out in a Court of Law had
not both WJC and Monica Lewinsky lied under oath - even if by lies of
omission. Second - if he did commit perjury, which is an actual crime, then he
deserves not only to be turned out of office, but to face criminal charges.>>

Well, no.  The basis of the Starr report is that Clinton was trying to cover
up an affair with Lewinsky, not harassment of Jones.  As I said earlier, the
dismissal of the case had nothing to do with the Lewinsky matter.  

<<Remember, please, that the President and VP are not elected by the people,
but by the Electors in each state, voting as indicated by the vote of the
people. (US Constitution,
Article II, Section 1, and the 12th Amendment) Elected officials put the
President into office, and they can remove him from office.>>

If by this statement, you intend to say that the people have no say in the
matter, then I have to disagree with you.  The drafters of the Constitution
put the question of impeachment into the hands of the people most closely
associated with the people -- the members of the House of Representatives.
Just as the power of the purse resides in the House, so does the power to
impeach, and both draw on the same theory of government which holds that this
body will be the most responsive to the wishes of the people.