The crimes committed by the President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, are nefarious enough to our constitutional government, which has as one of its foundations a powerful judicial system, to merit conviction and removal from office by the Senate.
One of the more interesting things about this entire process has been the lack of disputation over the actual facts of the case. This means that the main issue is whether or not Clinton's behavior, which both sides agree was "reprehensible," is impeachable. Unfortunately, thus far the debate has primarily focused on whether lying about sex is impeachable, rather than attempting to determine if perjury in general is an impeachable offense. In other words, too much attention has focused on the nature of the perjury committed rather than on the nature of perjury itself.
Perjury is considered a serious enough crime in our legal system to warrant prison time if one is convicted of it. There is a crucial reason why perjury is a crime, and it is because our legal system has as its foundation the testifying of witnesses. It is believed that if witnesses are called and testify truthfully about what took place, it is a relatively easy manner to determine what happened. Circumstantial evidence alone is not adequate, for it can point in many contradictory and unsatisfactory directions. It is only by examining the testimony of relevant witnesses, and applying this testimony to any material evidence present that a verdict can be reached. If witnesses do not tell the truth in a court of law, however, then the entire system collapses, making it impossible to establish guilt or innocence. Instead, the lawyer able to put the best spin on the facts, or the one with the most silver tongue will win the case. Justice becomes impossible in such a system, and the client with the most money will end up winning. While I do not deny the fact that perjury is probably a regular phenomenon in the court room today, it is strongly discouraged and the average citizen feels compelled to admit the truth in a trial, even if that truth is unpleasant or even harmful to himself. Perjury is, therefore, not just a "personal failing" or an inconsequential trivial little matter, but instead constitutes an attack on the entire system of justice. Without the crime of Perjury, it would be impossible for any court room in the nation to continue to function at all effectively.
The most common defense normally put forth by supporters of Clinton, and the one that most clearly demonstrates their avoidance of the fundamental issues in the case, is that "while his actions may have been reprehensible, he has been a good president" or some variation thereof. Leaving aside for the moment the question of why we would want a reprehensible criminal for president anyway, it should be that this line of reasoning has two main logical absurdities. First of all, it implies that if the country were not prosperous, or if some of Clinton's questionable foreign policies had had disastrous consequences that it would be justifiable to remove him from office. The process of impeachment is not job approval -- the actual policies a president pursues are completely irrelevant. If a president commits high crimes or misdemeanors, then he should be impeached. If not, he should not. The second problem with this average defense of Clinton is that it further implies that no matter what crimes the President might commit, if he is a successful executive he should be allowed to remain in power. So it's all right if a president murders as long as the stock exchange is at record highs. Clearly, the flaws in these arguments means that they should be entirely disregarded. Let me further adamantly stress that the issue is not sex. While the matter Clinton perjured himself on relates to sex, it is not his extramarital affair with a subordinate employee half his age that should result in his removal. Nor is it average, run-of-the-mill lying. It is lying, in a court of law, about material relevant to the case for which Clinton should be removed. Clinton should only be allowed to remain in office if his offense of perjury is not serious enough to warrant.
And perjury is certainly serious enough to warrant removal. Because the crime of perjury is fundamentally an attack on the judicial system, by undermining the very process of it, it is one that must be addressed in a harsh and uncompromising manner. Furthermore, the breaking of the law by the very man who is supposed to represent it, by the very person who symbolizes the enforcement of that law, is one that cannot be permitted to go addressed, much less condoned. If we want one of the fundamental instruments of our democratic system, and one of the three branches of our government, to continue to function strongly we must complete the process of impeachment and remove Clinton from office. To do less risks setting the legal precedent that perjury does not matter, and thus the potential destruction of the legal system. The end result of this would be a crippling of American democracy altogether. We cannot allow this. President William Jefferson Clinton must be removed from office.
