Perjury Comparisons

From dKosopedia

Contents

1 Overview
2 Inspiration and initial sources
3 Politicians
4 Commentators
5 Others
- 5.1 Ken Starr

Overview

This article is intended to document shifting attitudes towards the crime of Perjury by Republican politicians and political commentators across the spectrum. The article contains quotations from the time of the Clinton impeachment, contrasted with (when available) quotations from the present. Please add additional quotations (and additional politicians/commentators/etc.). Unless otherwise noted, Then refers to 1999, Now refers to 2005.

Inspiration and initial sources

This article grew out of a suggestion in the dKos diary "Kay Bailey Hutchinson flip flops on perjury". Many of the quotations given here were sourced by the diarist and the commenters in that diary and in an earlier diary.

Politicians

The President

Texas Gov. George W. Bush, cranking up his still-unofficial run for the White House, said on Tuesday he would have voted to impeach President Clinton for lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. In response to a reporter's question, Bush said he supported impeachment for a simple reason: "The man lied."

Now:

Senators

Sam Brownback (R-Kansas)

"Perjury and obstruction of justice are crimes against the state. Perjury goes directly against the truth-finding function of the judicial branch of government."

Now:

Larry Craig (R-Idaho)

"There is no question in my mind that perjury and obstruction of justice are the kind of public crimes that the Founders had in mind, and the House managers have demonstrated these crimes were committed by the president. As for the excuses being desperately sought by some to allow President Clinton to escape accountability, it seems to me that creating such loopholes would require tearing holes in the Constitution-something that cannot be justified to protect this president, or any president."

Now:

Mike DeWine (R-Ohio)

Perjury is also a very serious crime. The Constitution gives every defendant a choice: Testify truthfully, or remain silent. No one can be forced to testify in a manner that involves self-incrimination. But a decision to place one's hand on the Bible and invoke God's witness--and then lie--threatens the judiciary. The judiciary is designed to be a mechanism for finding the truth--so that justice can be done. Perjury perverts the judiciary, turning it into a mechanism that accepts lies--so that injustice may prevail.

Now:

Bill Frist (R-Tenn), Senate Majority Leader

There is no serious question that perjury and obstruction of justice are high crimes and misdemeanors. Blackstone's famous Commentaries--widely read by the framers of the Constitution--put perjury on equal footing with bribery as a crime against the state. Perjury was understood to be as serious as bribery, which is specifically mentioned in the Constitution as a ground for impeachment. Today, we punish perjury and obstruction of justice at least as severely as we punish bribery. Apparently, the seriousness of perjury and obstruction of justice has not diminished over time. Indeed, our own Senate precedent establishes that perjury is a high crime and misdemeanor. The Senate has removed seven federal judges from office.

Now:

Phil Gramm (R-Texas)

In an impeachment process steeped in partisanship, I have tried to screen out my own strong partisan sentiments by asking a simple question: Would I vote to convict President Ronald Reagan or President George Bush if they had committed the acts that President Clinton has committed? The answer is a sad but firm yes.

Now:

Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas)

Willful, corrupt, and false sworn testimony before a Federal grand jury is a separate and distinct crime under applicable law and is material and perjurious if it is `capable' of influencing the grand jury in any matter before it, including any collateral matters that it may consider. See, Title 18, Section 1623, U.S. Code, and Federal court cases interpreting that Section. The President's testimony before the Federal grand jury was fully capable of influencing the grand jury's investigation and was clearly perjurious. ...Then came the dress, the tapes, and the Federal grand jury. The attempt to obstruct and cover-up grew, expanded, and developed a life of its own. It overpowered the underlying offense itself. A new strategy was required, fast: The President was advised: `Admit the sex, but never the lies.' Shift the blame; change the subject. Blame it on the plaintiff in the Arkansas case. Blame it on her lawyers. Blame it on the Independent Counsel. Blame it on partisanship. Blame it on the majority members of the House Judiciary Committee. Blame it on the process.

The edifice of American jurisprudence rests on the foundation of the due process of law. The mortar in that foundation is the oath. Those who seek to obstruct justice weaken that foundation, and those who violate the oath would tear the whole structure down.

I'm torn as many people are because I am very worried that we are sending a signal in this country by not getting a two-thirds vote for conviction that somehow the standards for perjury and obstruction of justice are less because the president has done these things and has not been convicted. I don't want that to be the message. And I think it is the foundation of our criminal justice system. So many people are looking for a way to show that this isn't correct behavior and with all due respect to my colleagues, we didn't cause the stain on the presidency. The president caused the stain on the presidency. He misbehaved, he drug this out month after money after month when he could have come to closure on it either by admitting that he lied and asking for forgiveness, or by resigning in an honorable resignation. He did neither of those. So I think we are now toward the end. I'm glad we are. But nobody is really happy with the final result of an acquittal.

I was reminded as well, however, that the laws of our Country are applicable to us all, including the President, and they must be obeyed. The concept of equal justice under law and the importance of absolute truth in legal proceedings is the foundation of our justice system in the courts.

However inappropriate the behavior of the President was, the legal issues in the impeachment trial do not deal with this relationship. All accusations against the President here relate instead to alleged attempts to prevent the disclosure of this relationship in a pending civil rights lawsuit against the President in an Arkansas Federal court and to the public. That is the critical factor that has brought us to this extraordinary moment in our Nation's history when we are considering whether or not to remove from office the President of the United States

SEN. HUTCHISON: Tim, you know, I think we have to remember something here. An indictment of any kind is not a guilty verdict, and I do think we have in this country the right to go to court and have due process and be innocent until proven guilty. And secondly, I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars. So they go to something that trips someone up because they said something in the first grand jury and then maybe they found new information or they forgot something and they tried to correct that in a second grand jury.

I think we should be very careful here, especially as we are dealing with something very public and people's lives in the public arena. I do not think we should prejudge. I think it is unfair to drag people through the newspapers week after week after week, and let's just see what the charges are. Let's tone down the rhetoric and let's make sure that if there are indictments that we don't prejudge.

MR. RUSSERT: But the fact is perjury or obstruction of justice is a very serious crime and Republicans certainly thought so when charges were placed against Bill Clinton before the United States Senate. Senator Hutchison.

SEN. HUTCHISON: Well, there were charges against Bill Clinton besides perjury and obstruction of justice. And I'm not saying that those are not crimes. They are. But I also think that we are seeing in the judicial process--and look at Martha Stewart, for instance, where they couldn't find a crime and they indict on something that she said about something that wasn't a crime. I think that it is important, of course, that we have a perjury and an obstruction of justice crime, but I also think we are seeing grand juries and U.S. attorneys and district attorneys that go for technicalities, sort of a gotcha mentality in this country. And I think we have to weigh both sides of this issue very carefully and not just jump to conclusions, because someone is in the public arena, that they are guilty without being able to put their case forward. I really object to that.

What were those additional charges against Clinton?

Articles of impeachment before the Senate:

I. Perjury article: William Jefferson Clinton provided "perjurious, false and misleading testimony" before Independent Counsel Ken Starr's grand jury. Hutchison (R-TX) votes: Guilty

II. Obstruction of justice article: William Jefferson Clinton obstructed justice to "delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence" related to the Jones case. Hutchison (R-TX) votes: Guilty

Rejected articles of impeachment:

Article II: William Jefferson Clinton provided "perjurious, false and misleading testimony" in the Paula Jones civil case.

Article IV: William Jefferson Clinton misused and abused "his high office" by making perjurious statements to Congress in his answers to the 81 questions posed by the Judiciary Committee.

Jon Kyl (R-Arizona)

"...there can be no doubt that perjurious, false, and misleading statements made under oath in federal court proceedings are indeed impeachable offenses...John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States, said `there is no crime more extensively pernicious to society' than perjury, precisely because it `discolors and poisons the streams of justice.'"

Now:

Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky)

"I am completely and utterly perplexed by those who argue that perjury and obstruction of justice are not high crimes and misdemeanors...Perjury and obstruction hammer away at the twin pillars of our legal system: truth and justice."

Now:

Rick Santorum (R-Penn)

You can certainly argue ... that someone who breaks the law in not upholding and not telling the truth under oath and someone who obstructs justice does, in fact, threaten the republic.

Now:

George Voinovich (R-Ohio)

"As constitutional scholar Charles Cooper said, `The crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice, like the crimes of treason and bribery, are quintessentially offenses against our system of government, visiting injury immediately on society itself.'"

Now:

Representatives

Tom Bliley (R-VA)

Then (source unknown):

Either we are a Nation of laws or we are a Nation of men. If we are a Nation of laws, then the highest and the lowest are subject to the same law. There is no preferential treatment, and we and our Constitution grant none.

Now:

Bob Barr (R-Georgia)

We are sending the American people a clear message that truth is more important than partisanship and that the Constitution cannot be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency, that no longer will we turn a blind eye to clear evidence of obstruction of justice, perjury and abuse of power. We will be sending a message to this and all future Presidents that if, in fact, the evidence establishes that you or any future President have committed perjury, obstruction of justice, subversion of our judicial system, then we will be saying, No, sir, Mr. President, these things you cannot do. It is our job as legislators to diagnose threats to our democracy and eliminate them. By the time the damage to our system is so great that everyone can see it, the wounds will be too deep to heal. We have already waited too long to address this issue. We must move forward quickly, courageously, fairly and most importantly, constitutionally along the one and the one and only path charted for us in the Constitution: the impeachment process.

Now:

Steve Buyer (R-Indiana)

"The President's premeditated assault on the administration of justice must be interpreted as a threat to our system of government."

Now:

Charles Canady (R-Florida)

"Perjury and obstruction of justice are akin to bribery both in their purpose and in their effect,"

Now:

Merrill Cook (R-UT)

Then (source unknown):

I am not a lawyer, but I do not think that the law requiring us to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth means we can tell the truth that is convenient or the truth only about certain things. A lie is a lie. A lie to a grand jury and a lie in a sworn deposition is equally a lie and equally a violation of the law, whether it is about sex or whether it is about national security. Others who have lied under oath have been criminally charged. In the last 2 years, 3 people in my State of Utah have been charged, convicted and sentenced for lying under oath. They faced the consequences of their actions and they took their punishment.

Now:

Tom DeLay (R-Texas)

. . . I believe that this nation sits at a crossroads. One direction points to the higher road of the rule of law. Sometimes hard, sometimes unpleasant, this path relies on truth, justice and the rigorous application of the principle that no man is above the law. Now, the other road is the path of least resistance. This is where we start making exceptions to our laws based on poll numbers and spin control. This is when we pitch the law completely overboard when the mood fits us, when we ignore the facts in order to cover up the truth. Shall we follow the rule of law and do our constitutional duty no matter unpleasant, or shall we follow the path of least resistance, close our eyes to the potential lawbreaking, forgive and forget, move on and tear an unfixable hole in our legal system? No man is above the law, and no man is below the law. That's the principle that we all hold very dear in this country.

Now:

Elton Gallegly (R-CA)

Then (source unknown):

Our legal system is dependent on people telling the truth, telling the truth under oath. Lying under oath undermines the rule of law.

"We have a long list of persons in federal jails across this country for perjury. In fact, in my home state of California, last year alone, we had 4,000 individuals prosecuted for perjury last year alone. If the president is not impeached, do you think the president should pardon these folks?"

Now:

Bill Goodling (R-PA)

Then (source unknown)

I began the day by reading an article in a New York newspaper, and I quote: `Two more cops were arrested yesterday on Federal charges of lying when questioned by the FBI.' They were not before a grand jury. They were two highly decorated officers. Then I turned to the sports page from one of the Washington newspapers, and I read the following: `A former Northwestern football player pleaded not guilty and denied lying to Federal grand juries.' The article also said two other players have been charged with lying. There are more than 100 people in prison today, in Federal prisons, for perjury. Some of those were prosecuted by this administration, and some of those dealt with sex. Our constitutional system of government cannot survive if we allow our judicial system to be undermined, and, again, giving you the three illustrations that I just gave, what are they to think?

Now:

Lindsey Graham (R-S. Carolina)

"Don't lie under oath when you're a defendant in a lawsuit against an average citizen.[...] Don't sent public officials and friends to tell your lies before a federal grand jury to avoid your legal responsibilities. Don't put your legal and political interests ahead of the rule of law and common decency.[...] I don't want my country to be the country of great equivocators and compartmentalizers for the next century.

Now:

Asa Hutchinson (R-Arkansas)

We have been referred serious charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power. The President and his lawyers have denied each of these charges as is his right to do. Our response should be that we need to examine these facts to determine the truth and to weigh the evidence, and it is our highest duty today to vote for this inquiry so that if the result is there are no impeachable offenses, we could move on. But if there is more to be done, then we can assure that the rule of law will not be suspended or ignored by this Congress.

Now:

Henry Hyde (R-Illinois)

Lying under oath is an abuse of freedom. Obstruction of justice is a degradation of law. There are people in prison for such offenses.

Now, lying under oath is either important, or it isn't. If some people can lie under oath and others can't, let's find out. If some subjects are "lie-able" -- that is, you can lie about them -- and others are not, let's fine-tune our jurisprudence that way. But if the same law applies to everybody equally, that's the American tradition. And that's what we're looking at.

"I was on the Intelligence Committee (during the Iran-contra hearings). And when I had a more nuanced view about misleading people, at no time did I sanction perjury. At no time did I sanction Ollie North or [John] Poindexter lying under oath. I objected, and I made my objections known. But what I tried to explain -- and I said context is everything. And I stand by that ... You cannot find any place or any time where I condoned or justified perjury or raising your hand and asking God to witness to the truth of what you're saying and then lying."

Now:

Jim Leach (R-Iowa)

In her philosophical treatise "Lying," Sissela Bok, the Harvard ethicist, notes that, and I quote: "Veracity functions as the foundation of relations among human beings. When this trust shatters or wears away, institutions collapse." Bok goes on to note that, and I quote, "Truthfulness has always been seen as an essential to human society, no matter how deficient the observance of other moral principles," unquote. This is why lying under oath is so serious and why the President's refusal to acknowledge truthfully the factual circumstances that have been established so shatters the moral underpinnings of Government.

Now:

Bill McCollum (R-Florida)

If he is judged to have committed a high crime and misdemeanor for committing these other crimes of perjury, we will have determined that indeed he is no longer the legal officer at the highest pinnacle of this country. Because to leave him sitting there is to undermine the very judicial system we have. It is to convey the message that perjury is O.K. Certainly at least perjury in certain matters and under certain circumstances. It is not O.K. It is a very serious crime. Obstructing justice is, witness tampering is . . . What do we say in the future to all of those people who take the oath of office who say, I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth . . . If we leave this President alone, if he committed these crimes, then we have undermined our Constitution and we have undermined our system of justice.

Now:

Jim Rogan (R-NY)

Then (source unknown):

How trivial is perjury to the person who loses a child custody case or goes to prison because perjured testimony was offered as a truth in a court of law? What is the impact on our system of justice when perjury is marginalized or excused for embarrassment, inconvenience, or to insulate one's self as was done here in a sexual harassment case? Listen to the words of the United States Supreme Court on the subject of perjury: `In this constitutional process of securing a witness' testimony, perjury simply has no place whatsoever. Perjured testimony is an obvious and flagrant affront to the basic concepts of judicial proceedings. Congress has made the giving of false answers a criminal act, punishable by severe penalties; in no other way can criminal conduct be flushed into the open where the law can deal with it.' Mr. Speaker, our Supreme Court characterizes perjured testimony not as trivial conduct, but as criminal conduct.

Now:

Ilenna Ros-Lethinen (R-FL)

Then (source unkown):

Mr. Speaker, our courts of law and our legal system are the bedrock of our democracy and of our system of individual rights. Lying under oath in a legal proceeding and obstruction of justice undermine the rights of all citizens who must rely upon our courts to protect their rights. If lying under oath in our courts and obstruction are ignored, or they are classified as merely minor offenses, then we have jeopardized the rights of everyone who seeks redress in our courts. Lying under oath is an ancient crime of great weight because it shields other offenses, because it blocks the light of truth in human affairs. It is a dagger in the heart of our legal system, and, indeed, in our democracy. It cannot, it should not, it must not be tolerated. We know that a right without a remedy is not a right, and if we ignore, allow or encourage lying and obstruction of justice in our legal system, then the rights promised in our laws are hollow.

Now:

James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc)

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin): If people can perjure themselves in court about sex, don't you think that that makes our sexual harassment laws and our domestic violence laws less meaningful, and in many cases, unenforceable?

Holtzman: Mr. Sensenbrenner, I hate to answer a question with a question. But don't you think there's an enormous difference between keeping a dual set of books about bombing of a foreign country without the authorization of Congress, and not telling the truth about a private sexual misconduct?

Sensenbrenner: I think there should be no difference because our perjury and false statements statutes, you know, do not have various levels of perjury. When you do make a false statement, you have to live by the consequences. And I think we all try to teach our kids that one of the things they always should do is always tell the truth.

Now:

Gerry Solomon (R-NY)

Then (source unknown):

If we countenance this misconduct, what are we to say to the American citizens currently serving Federal prison sentences for perjury?

Now:

Commentators

Bill Bennett

People give a lot of leeway to people in public life. They understand that people, you know, come as sinners and they will sin continually, whether they're in public life or private life. But they do have certain lines that you can't cross. One of them is, I think, lying under oath, perjury, high crimes. That is a serious business.

Now:

William Kristol

Then (source unknown):

Some of us think his perjury and obstruction of justice are more serious threats to the constitutional order and to civic mores, and that his behavior goes way beyond shabbiness.

It is fundamentally inappropriate to allow the criminal law to be used to resolve what is basically a policy and political dispute within the administration, or between the administration and its critics. One trusts that the special counsel will have the courage after conducting his exhaustive investigation to reject inappropriate criminal indictments if the evidence does not require them

George Will

As president he was fined $90,000 for contempt of court, and there is no reasonable doubt that he committed and suborned perjury, tampered with witnesses and otherwise obstructed justice. In the words of Richard A. Posner, chief judge of the 7th Circuit, Clinton's illegalities ``were felonious, numerous and nontechnical and ``constituted a kind of guerrilla warfare against the third branch of the federal government, the federal court system. Clinton is not the worst president the republic has had, but he is the worst person ever to have been president

Republicans should not press Majority Leader Bill Frist's implied threat, in his Senate speech Friday, that the differences between Clarke's sworn testimony to the Senate in 2002 and his sworn testimony to the Sept. 11 commission constitute perjury. Perjury being properly difficult to prove, Clarke, if charged, would be acquitted. Besides, it is time to stop trying to criminalize political differences, even those flavored, as in Clarke's case, by anger, malice, opportunism and meretriciousness.

John Hinderaker (Powerline)

Like many others, we have been frustrated by the apparent inability of much of the American public to take the Clinton scandals seriously. "It's not about sex," we have patiently repeated to our benighted friends. "It's about perjury. It's about obstruction of justice. The sex is only incidental. At most it was the motive for the crimes. You wouldn't think murder was unimportant just because the motive for the murder was sex, would you?" So goes our argument.

Tomorrow may bring indictments of Karl Rove and Scooter Libby on charges that can charitably be described as trivial. Tonight, one of our readers urged us to link to President Bush's great speech to the Joint Armed Forces Officers' Wives' group rather than being distracted by the minutiae of the day. Good suggestion.

Ed Rogers (GOP strategist)

Then:

Now (Hardball, 10/28/05):

MATTHEWS: Would you criticize Fitzgerald? ROGERS: I will attack these indictment if there is no underlying crime. If there is no underlying crime here, then something is wrong, something weird is going on. MCMAHON: So perjury and obstruction, Ed, is not an impeachable offense anymore? (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: There was no underlying crime with Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was accused of perjury or obstruction. ROGERS: He never got indicted. MATTHEWS: He got impeached.

Others

Ken Starr

"Lying under oath, and encouraging lies under oath, does go to the very heart and soul of what courts do. And if we say we don't care, let's forget about courts and we'll just have other ways of figuring out how to handle disputes," he said. "There is no excuse for perjury -- never, never, never," he said. "There is truth, and the truth demands respect."

"The conversation between the president and Ms. Lewinsky on December 17 was a critical turning point. The evidence suggests that the president chose to engage in a criminal act -- to reach an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky that they would both make false statements under oath. At that moment, the president's intimate relationship with a subordinate employee was transformed. It was transformed into an unlawful effort to thwart the judicial process. This was no longer an issue of private conduct."

Now:

Retrieved from "http://localhost../../../p/e/r/Perjury_Comparisons_cffa.html"

This page was last modified 21:27, 3 May 2006 by dKosopedia user Patrick0Moran. Based on work by dKosopedia user(s) Dmsilev, Oslo, BriVT and Lord kelvin. Content is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.

Daily Kos
DailyKos FAQ

View source
Discuss this page
Page history
What links here
Related changes

Special pages
Bug reports