Tony Andragna seems to have a real blind spot on the Clinton impeachment issue, and seems to need continual fact checking.

(Stipulated: Clinton is a PIG) -- the tapes only confirm that Clinton lied in testimony that the trial judge in the Jones case later found to be immaterial. No "materiality" = no "perjury" = No felony.

One more time. The judge never ruled it immaterial. This has been the Clinton spin for years, but it is a lie. (In Tony's case, I'll be more generous, and call it a mistake.) What the judge ruled was that Starr's case took precedence over Paula Jones' case.

From the January 30, 1998 WaPo:

"The court acknowledges that evidence concerning Monica Lewinsky might be relevant to the issues in this [Jones] case," Wright wrote in her order. "The court determines, however, that it is not essential to the core issues in this case."

"not essential to the core issues of the case" != "immaterial"

The word "immaterial" appears nowhere, in the article, or in the ruling.

The judge says herself that the evidence might be relevant. But this is what happened:

Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr had asked U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright to block all pretrial gathering of evidence in the Jones case because of the "inevitable effect of disrupting" Starr's investigation into possible perjury, obstruction of justice and other allegations tied to the White House.

Wright rejected Starr's broad request but, in a written ruling, banned further evidence gathering by Jones's lawyers in "those matters that concern Monica Lewinsky."

I don't really expect anyone to change their minds--many will go to their grave continuing to make the false claim that the judge ruled the evidence immaterial, but for those who are interested in the truth, here it is, once again.

Tony then writes:

I don't know for sure what Tripp's motivation was in making the tapes --for which she was nearly prosecuted -- or revealing them. I'm quite sure, though, that Tripp was mostly concerned about herself, while Rowley's act was selfless -- no equivalence.

Well, I would assume that Tripp's motivation was exactly what she said it was--to protect herself from a perjury charge if she testified differently than Lewinsky and Clinton (exactly as Lewinisky was threatening her with in the tapes). I have no reason to believe that she's lying about this, since there's no evidence of her lying about anything else (unlike everyone else involved in the sordid mess). There never was a "book deal" or a "book," so why not just take her at her word?

Yes, she was concerned about herself, and her family. Is there something wrong with that? Who was she supposed to be concerned about? The scumbags who were trying to set her up for a perjury rap?

Even though the tapes hint that Clinton et al may have attempted to pressure Lewinsky to perjure herself, there is no proof, and Lewisnky denied it in her grand jury testimony.

The tapes "hint"? Tony must not have listened to the tapes. The tapes shout.

Tripp was threatened, her family was threatened. And given her history and all the other evidence, the most likely interpretation of Lewinsky's grand jury testimony was that she lied (just as she told Linda Tripp that she would).

And Starr might have been a competent judge, but he had no prosecutorial experience prior to this case, and his behavior was that of a bumbling fool.

Far from being the Clinton's enemy, under the circumstances, they couldn't have asked for a better friend...

[Update at 4:47 PM PDT]

Tony is still grasping at straws. In a follow up, he now claims that the evidence was immaterial because the judge threw the case out in April.

Sorry, it still doesn't fly. The judge only ruled that what Ms. Jones was claiming as facts didn't constitute harassment. She made no ruling whatsoever on the materiality of the Clinton testimony. I doubt if she herself would agree with Tony.

But let's just ask one more question, to show into what logical knots Clinton defenders must tie themselves (I'm not necessarily claiming that Tony is a Clinton defender--his porcine characterization of the former President is duly noted, but he seems to use the same arguments that they do).

The judge granted Starr's request that his investigation take precedence over Ms. Jones civil suit. That investigation was into perjury in the Jones case, among other things. If the judge thought that the President's testimony was immaterial, why would she grant Starr's request to investigate perjury?

And why did she hold Mr. Clinton in contempt of her court?

The problem here is getting different purjury standards confused. In a trial it is not perjury to lie about irrelevant matters, basically a "no harm no foul" rule.

In discovery, as opposed to trial, relevance is a broader concept. Relevant information in discovery is evidence that "is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence" Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Evidence is relevant if it is relevant to an existing claim or defense, even if that claim is defeated at the end of the day. When Clinton perjured himself, the scope of discovery was even broader.

If parties were able to lie to prevent discovery, as long as the issue was not "relevant," the whole process of civil discovery would be subverted. It would prevent parties from discovering genuinely admissible evidence, maybe even determinative evidence. And a party can be guilty of perjury in discovery even if the case is later dismissed. Likelihood of success on legal issues is not a pass to lie in discovery depositions. To say that the later dismissal proved that the evidence was "irrelevant" is simply not true as a matter of law.

When Clinton lied about Monica, he was trying to cut off a legitimate area of discovery.

People lie in civil discovery depositions all the time, just like they do at trial. But no lawyer will tell you that its OK if a witness lies to him. And if that witness gets found out--it is a big deal.

The instruction that is given in Ohio is: "A falsification is material, regardless of its admissibility in evidence, if it can affect the course or outcome of the proceedings." If a party purposely lies to subvert discovery that "affects the course or outcome of the proceeding," i.e the deposition itself not the trial. "An official proceeding is any proceeding before a legislative, judicial, administrative or other governmental agency or official authorized to take evidence under oath and includes proceedings before a referee, hearing examiner, commissioner, notary or other person taking testimony or a deposition in connection with an official proceeding."
Did Clinton commit perjury according to this instruction. No question.