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

Clinton's relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

Three. Applying those settled legal principles, Judge Susan Webber
Wright repeatedly rejected the president's objections to such
inquiries. The judge, instead, ordered the president to answer the
questions.

Four. It is a federal crime to commit perjury and obstruct justice in
civil cases, including sexual harassment cases. Violators are subject
to a sentence of up to 10 years imprisonment for obstruction and up to
five years for perjury.

Five. The evidence suggests that the president and Ms. Lewinsky made
false statements under oath and obstructed the judicial process in the
Jones case by preventing the court from obtaining the truth about
their relationship.

At his grand jury appearance, the president invoked a Supreme Court
justice's confirmation hearings as a comparison to his current
situation. The president's use of the analogy did not fit the facts in
the Monica Lewinsky matter, however. The president's having raised the
analogy, let me make it more fitting to the case here.

Suppose that there is a nominee for a high government position. Assume
that there is an allegation of sexual harassment. Suppose that several
women other than the accuser who have worked with the nominee testify
before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Suppose that the nominee
confers with one of those women ahead of time, and that they agree
that they will both lie to the Judiciary Committee about their
relationship. Assume further that they both do lie under oath about
their relationship. And suppose further that a criminal investigation
develops and the nominee again lies under oath to the grand jury. If
that were proved to have happened, what would the Senate Judiciary
Committee do?

Suppose that the lying under oath and obstruction of justice occurs in
a sexual harassment suit brought against the nominee. Suppose further
that the false statements and obstruction continue into a subsequent
criminal investigation. What would this committee do with compelling
evidence of perjury and obstruction of justice committed by, for
example, a justice of the Supreme Court in a sexual harassment suit in
which he was the defendant?

Those hypotheticals – which track the facts of this case –
put in relief the issue before the Committee. Let me again stress that
the House, not an independent counsel, has the sole power to impeach.
I am suggesting that consideration of our referral be focused on the
issues actually presented by the referral.

C. The President's Actions: Dec. 5-Jan. 17