- The Washington Times - Monday, January 29, 2001

When Independent Counsel Robert Ray described his deal with William Jefferson Clinton which ignored Mr. Clinton's perjurious testimony before a federal grand jury and obstruction of justice, Clinton defender, Rep. John Conyers, was delighted at the end of this "long national farce over an extramarital affair."
But the "farce" was in the meticulous evasiveness of the language in the deal that allowed even Ken Starr to say unreflectively, it was "very reasonable" and "a healthy thing that this has been closed."
So it was that Mr. Clinton's lawyer, David Kendall, emphatically told the press after the deal was signed and a reporter asked whether Clinton had admitted he had intentionally lied "He did not lie. We have not admitted he lied. And he did not do so today."
And White House Press Secretary Jake Siewert assured the nation that Mr. Clinton was not saying that he knowingly gave false testimony.
But on NBC-TV's "Meet the Press," Independent Counsel Robert Ray pointed out that Mr. Clinton clearly now had admitted that portions of his testimony under oath were false, and that his intent was to knowingly evade and mislead a federal judge. And that what he did was prejudicial to the administration of justice.
But Mr. Ray, in this deal, allowed Mr. Clinton to admit that he lied only in his deposition in the Paula Jones case. Mr. Clinton, however, lied under oath to a federal grand jury, and he did that with the American public watching on television. By clearing Mr. Clinton of this more serious act of perjury, Mr. Ray failed in his own responsibility to do justice.
Not surprisingly, on "Meet the Press," Mr. Clinton's longtime whirling flack, James Carville, said triumphantly about the Ray-Clinton deal: "Never, ever was there any allegation about the president's testimony before the grand jury; never, ever anything about obstruction of justice." But Mr. Ray had been investigating whether Mr. Clinton had committed perjury and obstruction of justice.
And both perjury and obstruction did take place. In his book, "An Affair of State: The Investigation, Impeachment and Trial of President Clinton" (Harvard University Press), Richard Posner, chief judge of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, stated unequivocally: "It is clear that Clinton perjured himself in the Paula Jones deposition, even though, as Clinton's defenders emphasized, the crime of perjury is narrowly defined in federal law."
Judge Posner continued: "A number of the president's lies before the (federal) grand jury were incontestably material to the grand jury's investigation into whether he had perjured himself in the Paula Jones case and whether he and others had committed other obstructions of justice in that case. The charge of perjury before the grand jury (was) even stronger than the charge of perjury at the deposition in the Paula Jones case."
Judge Posner noted that perjury is included in the definition of obstruction of justice along with tampering with witnesses, which, he wrote, Mr. Clinton also did. The maximum punishment, Judge Posner wrote, for one count of perjury or subornation of perjury is five years in prison, and for one count of witness tampering, 10 years. In Mr. Clinton's case, the likely outcome, says Judge Posner, would be a prison sentence of 30 to 37 months.
But Mr. Ray refused to indict Mr. Clinton. Why? Because, Mr. Ray said, he acted in the best interest of the country, so that the new president would be afforded an opportunity with some space, perhaps not as much space as one would have liked, for a fresh start. Astonishingly, Mr. Ray added, "sometimes we may rely too much on law and constitution and statutes."
All of us have been repeatedly subjected to the mantra the rule of law, but Mr. Ray has carved an exception into that rule for the convenience of the new president and to fulfill the ardent desire of many in this country to let all of this ignominy come to closure.
But Mr. Ray, when he took on this responsibility, pledged that he would affirm the principle that no person is above the law, not even the president of the United States. Not even, Mr. Ray, if the new president and much of the populace would prefer that the former president be treated in a manner fundamentally differently from the way he would have been treated had he been an ordinary citizen who obstructed justice. Or even the CEO of a major company who had committed serial perjury.
As Jennifer Oureshi, a 26-year-old teacher, told the New York Daily News: "It's not a good message for our country. It tells people if you do something wrong, there's a way to get away with it."

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide