"Starr.Remarks" - читать интересную книгу автора (impeachment)

That same night, the president publicly acknowledged an inappropriate
relationship, but maintained that his testimony had been legally
accurate. The president also declared that all inquiries into the
matter should end because, he said, it was private.

Shortly after the president's Aug. 17 speech, Sens. Lieberman, Kerrey,
and Moynihan stated that the president's actions were not a private
matter. In our view, they were correct. Indeed, the evidence suggests
that the president repeatedly tried to thwart the legal process in the
Jones case and the grand jury investigation. That is not a private
matter. The evidence further suggests that the president, in the
course of these efforts, misused his authority and power as president
and contravened his duty to faithfully execute the laws. That, too, is
not a private matter.

The evidence suggests that the misuse of presidential authority
occurred in the following 10 ways:

First. The evidence suggests that the president made a series of
premeditated false statements under oath in his civil deposition on
Jan. 17, 1998. The president had taken an oath to tell the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth. By making false statements
under oath, the president, the chief executive of our nation, failed
to adhere to that oath and to his presidential oath to faithfully
execute the laws.

Second. The evidence suggests that, apart from making false statements
under oath, the president engaged in a pattern of behavior during the
Jones litigation to thwart the judicial process. The president reached
an agreement with Ms. Lewinsky that each would make false statements
under oath. He provided job assistance to Ms. Lewinsky at a time when
the Jones case was proceeding and Ms. Lewinsky's truthful testimony
would have been harmful. He engaged in an apparent scheme to conceal
gifts that had been subpoenaed from Ms. Lewinsky. He coached a
potential witness, his own secretary Betty Currie, with a false
account of relevant events.

Those acts constitute a pattern of obstruction that is fundamentally
inconsistent with the president's duty to faithfully execute the laws.

Third. The evidence suggests that the president participated in a
scheme at his deposition in which his attorney, in his presence,
deceived a United States district judge in an effort to cut off
questioning about Ms. Lewinsky. The president did not correct his
attorney's false statement. A false statement to a federal judge in
order to prevent relevant questioning is an obstruction of the
judicial process.

Fourth. The evidence suggests that on Jan. 23, 1998, after the