| |
Well, Jim, I have read your long post regarding the impeachment. I
have read it several times. It is well-reasoned and argued. Still,
I disagree. Let me explain, and I hope to do it without the name-
calling, labeling and slander that seems to accompany all of these
discussions, and without taking your arguments out of context.
The "rule of law" argument does not have the force for me it seems to
for you.
I think this paragraph embodies the essence of your argument:
> On the one hand you are saying that the central principal of our legal
> system - testimony under oath must be truthful - is a throw-away issue,
> not important at all and subject to the whim of the person under oath.
> Taking that step removes any pretense that our legal system has any
> validity at all. We put people to death on the strength of that
> assumption: murderers have gone to the gas chamber on the strength of
> testimony under oath - 'I saw him shoot that man, your honor'. If we do
> not ruthlessly defend the validity of that principle, then our ability
> to justly prosecute is taken away.
I would not say "testimony under oath must be truthful" is a throw-away
issue. It is not, however, in my opinion, the cornerstone that underpins
our legal system. I am convinced that people lie under oath every day in
practically every court in this land. I personally have been on
four different juries. People lied under oath, in my opinion, in
each of those trials. They do it for a variety of reasons and they
are not put in jail, they are not fined, they don't go to trial for it
and they don't lose their jobs for it. The justice system in the U.S.
does not collapse. It is the job of the jury to follow the instructions
of the court and in so doing, decide who lied and who did not. Like it
or not, what goes on in a courtroom in the U.S. is not about some
absolute truth, it is about a jury following court instructions, and
sometimes, as you point out, murderers have gone to the gas chamber.
They have also walked free. The system did not collapse.
It is for this reason, that I do not believe lying under oath rises
to the high crimes and misdemeanors sited by the framers of the
constitution -- especially lying about a personal sexual affair. (As an
irrelevant side comment let me say that history makes a mockery of the
notion one cannot have affairs and be a great leader also.)
I welcome a trial in the Senate. Censure would be a cop out. The jury
will return a verdict. Bill Clinton will remain President when this
sorry episode is done, as he should to avoid the trivialization of the
phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors," and open every subsequent
president to slap suits, smears, persecution and every other form of
"legal" harassment until each leaves office.
as evah,
John C.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Impeachment
|
| Also sprach John Cromer: : I would not say "testimony under oath must be truthful" is a throw-away : issue. It is not, however, in my opinion, the cornerstone that underpins : our legal system. I am convinced that people lie under oath every day in (...) (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
16 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
