Anonymous writes:
Frondeur writes:
Why do you believe the perjury case has `reasonable doubt' problems?
Watch TV and learn the answer. It's only perjury if it's material, and the judge said it wasn't material.
This doesn't speak to `reasonable doubt' which was the subject under discussion. Or are you arguing that a defense to perjury is that there is reasonable doubt that a question was material? Go watch TV and report back with the answer.
And the abuse of power case seems thin even to a non-lawyer. But where does the `executive privilege stuff' come in? I don't see that Starr listed that among his possible grounds for impeachment.
Among the grounds Starr listed was Clinton's attempt to delay the investigation by raising many legal objections. He claimed privilege, for example, with respect to Secret Service testimony. Most of his efforts were ultimately overruled.
Yes, but I assumed Mac had included this under the `abuse of power' heading since he explicitly cited that topic in his message to which I was responding, and since that appeared to match one of the broad headings under which Starr classifies his possible `grounds for impeachment': "...that President Clinton's actions ... have been inconsistent with the President's constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws. " I see nowhere that Starr claims that it was illegal/impeachable for Clinton to have claimed executive privilege. He merely notes that Clinton used it (extensively) along with a bunch of other tactics to delay and impede the investigation. - Frondeur