E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
Now we can expect a festival of Clinton-impeachment switcheroos, with Dems learning to love perjury traps while Republicans ditch the "rule of law"; and everyone trades places on the wisdom of having a sitting president testify in a civil suit. Coming up: Besieged complaints about the vast left-wing conspiracy, and true-believer laments that the president's detractors "refuse to accept the results of the election." Good times.
Sen. Hutchison on MTP this weekend poo-poos the pesky little "perjury technicality," though when Clinton was caught in the trap, opined:
"Willful, corrupt, and false sworn testimony before a Federal grand jury is a separate and distinct crime under applicable law and is material and perjurious if it is 'capable' of influencing the grand jury in any matter before it, including any collateral matters that it may consider." I vote `Guilty' on Article I, Perjury. I vote`Guilty' on Article II, Obstruction of Justice."
"I'm not comfortable when someone who has not committed [BEEN ACCUSED of committing?] any actual crime but who is panicked by the investigative process into making a false statement about his or her own behavior -- Martha Stewart, [WHO LIED to an investigator not a grand jury] for example -- is then prosecuted for that false statement.
On the other hand, sometimes a substantive crime cannot be proved precisely because the criminal managed to shred the evidence. [So NO PROOF that it existed.] In such cases [ON THAT assumption] the prosecution on the ancillary charge substitutes for prosecution on the charge-in-chief."
People try to make the law look easy, and it isn't. And I disagree with our host. I think the Dems will stick most strongly to the blow job defense: BJ = WMD?!=WAR!???
The smell test trumps the purity test. The Dems should attack as 'realists.'
And the Wilsons should wait publicly (very!) until the Boy King retires or is retired. Seeming to take the high-road is not the same thing as actually doing it.