In Session: Sidebar  « Back to Blog Main
February 3, 2008
Posted: 01:14 PM ET

WASHINGTON — When the U.S. Senate cleared President Bill Clinton of impeachment charges, even though he had lied under oath about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, many of his supporters passed it off on the grounds that “everybody lies about sex.” Some critics of the outcome worried that an unhealthy precedent had been set—a sort of “sneaking around” exception to the perjury laws.

Last week, the chief prosecutor in Detroit launched a perjury investigation of the city’s mayor which could indicate whether American law is developing a tolerance of lying under oath, so long as the lies are about sex. The investigation is focused on Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick and his longtime aide, Christine Beatty, who swore under oath in a civil case against the city that they had never had an extramarital affair. Last month the Detroit Free Press published transcripts of text messages between the mayor and his aide indicating that their relationship had, indeed, been quite intimate.

Ms. Beatty quickly resigned as the mayor’s chief of staff, and last Wednesday he delivered an emotional television address from a church with his wife and three young sons at his side. The mayor offered an abject apology to his constituents, but insisted that he will not resign. He did not discuss specifics of the false testimony issue.

The chief prosecutor in the case, Kym Worthy, will be familiar to those who watched trials on Court TV in its early years. She was seen on camera trying cases as a young prosecutor and later as a trial judge, and always came across as a competent, no-nonsense professional.

Mayor Kilpatrick is part of an influential political family in Detroit (his mother is a member of Congress in Washington), but he has been involved in of a series of controversial episodes. Time magazine once called him one of the three worst big-city mayors in the United States.

If there is an indictment and jury trial, the case could be pivotal in determining if perjury is to be condoned, so long as the lies were about sex.

Fred Graham, In Session Senior Editor

Filed under: Fred Graham


Share this on:
Sherry Cates   February 3rd, 2008 11:40 pm ET

Lying is lying!

If it’s against the law to lie under oath, then what difference does it make ” what the lie is”?

Why should lying about sex be any different than lying about other things? This debate is so ridicious! Lying under oath about anything is perjury… plain and simple!

Sandy, Farmington, MI   February 4th, 2008 1:37 am ET

Is it possible that spousal forgiveness of illicit sexual affairs is a subliminal signal for the public to forgive the indiscretion as well, and therefore contribute to our growing tendency to excuse lying about sex under oath?

Elizabeth   February 4th, 2008 10:03 am ET

Nobody really cares about the “poor me=poor wife” apology….how about lying under oath? How about making an entire trial a farce? How about all the money spent?

V   February 4th, 2008 3:56 pm ET

The problem is, some things should be left PRIVATE. If the matter is consensual sexual activity, why is the court allowing these questions to be posed in the first place? We need to create a system that protects people from unfair, unreasonable public questioning of private activity.

Fred Graham   February 4th, 2008 4:33 pm ET

We like to believe that no person is above the law-not even the President. But Bill Cllinton was a popular President, and a majority of the people did not want to see him removed from office, even though he was clearly guilty of lying under oath. His supporters felt that he had been hounded by special prosecutor Ken Starr into a situation where he felt he had to lie to preserve his reputation, his marriage and (perhaps) his job. So the Senate acquitted him.

A purist might say the Senate should have found him guilty of the impeachment charges, but hold that he should be only censored, not removed from office. As it turned out, the nation was spared more trauma, but at some cost to the principle that no person is above the law.

Paco   February 5th, 2008 1:18 am ET

Fred, I’m just shaking my head. Get over Clinton being a very naughy boy. And get on Bush for being a very guilty killer!

Brad   February 5th, 2008 7:55 am ET

When will people get it into their heads that the issue of perjury in the Clinton case turned not on the fact that he was misleading about a sexual matter, but, rather, if the matter he was testifing about was material to the Jones civil suit. Everone loves a scandle, and those in the media educated enough to understand the distinction prefer the short hand of “just lying about sex.”

dar   February 5th, 2008 3:00 pm ET

Fred, RE: Clinton et al
I seem to recall that one of the head honchos in this so called prosecution had a child out of wedlock while married to someone else.. when confronted his repsonse was ” OH well, I was just a kid then, ( he was in his 40’s ).. It seems to me that the world gets caught up in sexual transgressions and love to put there holier than thou hats on pretty quick. IF you screw someone in business people look the other way too often. I ,for one , think cheny has done plenty of that (unethical busniess activity ,to name one guy in the current andministration ) he just keeps on doing his half face smirk all the way to the bank. How about that kind of screwing ? it hurt a hell of a lot more people! I had friends who lost EVERYTHING WITH enron.

Bill made a huge mistake and will pay for it forever. Please, let’s let it go and focus on all of the women, children and men abeing slaughtered by this administration.

Unless it involves murder or some other horrendous crime we should leave private matters to the principal parties involved.

Jessie   February 5th, 2008 8:49 pm ET

If a politician can’t be honest,how can they ever be trusted.

Vicki   February 5th, 2008 9:05 pm ET

I find it difficult to believe these people would risk their positions and the security of our nation for a personal fling. I find it very selfish of them. They should remember they are representing the people who voted them into office and they have a very important job to do. They should try to do it without putting our nation up to public ridicule and posing possible security issues.

Michael   February 5th, 2008 9:41 pm ET

Let us not forget the main topic of discussion should be about perjury. The entire situation of two adults having consensual sex is not what is being tried in this case, unless it is the media trying it before a bonafide court can hear the whole case. What is being tried are the morals and values of everyday Americans. Is it okay to lie under oath, get caught having lied and then just let it go because the lie was about consensual sex and oh by the way you are a politician? No it is not okay to perjure yourself and expect to get away with just because you hold a certain office. If you commit the crime then face up to your responsibilities as an American and do not drag our judicial system through the mud. Too many men and women have died protecting this country and I can promise you this, they did not die just so we could perjurer ourselves under oath. God bless our fallen warriors and their families along with those still serving.

Don   February 6th, 2008 2:23 am ET

Just a bad arugment. Bush did this, Clinton did that .. on and on. None of that matters. The two real questions are:

Is it okay to lie under oath?
Is it okay only if you are powerful or popular?

Mark   February 6th, 2008 8:08 am ET

If we allow lying under oath..what is next…as acceptable under certain conditions. We seem to have very few if any ‘lines drawn in the sand’, stating this is enough and beyond this point is NOT allowed. I know and understand that at times an event must be considered in context. However, we seem to take this idea out…of context and make it a pre-text. Too many things become ’situational’..i.e: ethics, morals, standards, lying, cheating, affairs,…etc. Is it this easy???….just behave and you don’t have to worry about this? No wonder we don’t have faith/trust in the ’so called’ leaders of our local/state/fedral governments. If we hold ourselves to a high standard (we=as a whole people), we wouldn’t put up with this nonsense and make sure they were kicked out..regardless if they were Dem/Rep/Ind. Maybe it starts with me and you? Thanks for listening…be good.

Dtimer   February 7th, 2008 4:10 pm ET

I think that everyone needs to quit dwelling on the past. He made a mistake, who cares if he lied about it….everyone lies! He’s no longer the president and I think that all of this is just being brought up to create problems in Hillary’s running! So people need to get over it and move on. If you can honestly say that you’ve never lied before….then you must be pretty damn perfect! Congratulations, you’d be the first person i’ve heard of that was!!!!!

T   February 7th, 2008 7:01 pm ET

I think that someone lying under oath is wrong, no matter how you look at it. But our justice system always seems to turn the other cheek when it comes to these high profiled people doing wrong. The man lied, thats the bottom line. I don’t care who you are, what you do…it’s not ok to lie under oath.

Leave Your Comment


 

Comments are moderated by CNN, in accordance with the CNN Comment Policy, and may not appear on this blog until they have been reviewed and deemed appropriate for posting. Also, due to the volume of comments we receive, not all comments will be posted.


subscribe RSS Icon
About this blog

Sidebar takes you behind the scenes of the day's legal headlines with breaking news and in-depth analysis from In Session's anchors and correspondents.

Contributors
Ashleigh Banfield
Co-anchor of the daily trial program Banfield and Ford: Courtside
Ashleigh Banfield
Jack Ford
A former prosecutor and co-anchor of the daily trial program Banfield & Ford: Courtside
Jack Ford
Lisa Bloom
Anchor of the daily trial program Lisa Bloom: Open Court
Lisa Bloom
Jami Floyd
Former defense attorney and anchor of her own daily program Jami Floyd: Best Defense
Jami Floyd
Fred Graham
Senior Editor Fred Graham covers legal news in Washington, D.C.
Fred Graham
Jean Casarez
Attorney Jean Casarez covers trials around the country
Jean Casarez
Beth Karas
Former prosecutor Beth Karas covers trials around the country
Beth Karas
Categories
CNN Comment Policy: CNN encourages you to add a comment to this discussion. You may not post any unlawful, threatening, libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic or other material that would violate the law. Please note that CNN makes reasonable efforts to review all comments prior to posting and CNN may edit comments for clarity or to keep out questionable or off-topic material. All comments should be relevant to the post and remain respectful of other authors and commenters. By submitting your comment, you hereby give CNN the right, but not the obligation, to post, air, edit, exhibit, telecast, cablecast, webcast, re-use, publish, reproduce, use, license, print, distribute or otherwise use your comment(s) and accompanying personal identifying information via all forms of media now known or hereafter devised, worldwide, in perpetuity. CNN Privacy Statement.
Home  |  World  |  U.S.  |  Politics  |  Crime  |  Entertainment  |  Health  |  Tech  |  Travel  |  Living  |  Business  |  Sports  |  Time.com
Podcasts  |  Blogs  |  CNN Mobile  |  Preferences  |  Email Alerts  |  CNN Radio  |  CNN Shop  |  Site Map
© 2008 Cable News Network LP, LLLP. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by WordPress.com