The decision that has to be made was whether it was material, whether he knew he was lying under oath, whether he did it willfully. I think that's required of any prosecutor who is charged with an investigation of this.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The liar's punishment is not in the least that he is not believed, but that he cannot believe anyone else.
The prosecution has to go with the evidence and the facts and tell the story as it happened. The defense has more creative freedom. All you have to do is look for a defense that works. But it doesn't have to be the truth. Sometimes you get lucky and it is, but sometimes you don't, and either way, it doesn't matter.
It is now clear that the president violated both his oath of office and the oath he took to tell the truth. In doing so, Bill Clinton not only committed perjury, he violated the public trust.
A liar will not be believed, even when he speaks the truth.
The prosecution wants to make sure the process by which the evidence was obtained is not truthfully presented, because, as often as not, that process will raise questions.
They've got him - credible witnesses, documents, heaven knows what else. In all my years as a prosecutor I have never seen such an open-and-shut case.
The defendant wants to hide the truth because he's generally guilty. The defense attorney's job is to make sure the jury does not arrive at that truth.
For his own vindictive purposes, Jeffrey Sterling carelessly disclosed extremely valuable, highly classified information that he had taken an oath to keep secret.
Lying under oath, and encouraging lies under oath, does go to the very heart and soul of what courts do. If we say we don't care, let's forget about courts, and we'll just have other ways of figuring out how to handle disputes.
A liar is always lavish of oaths.