The Way The Law Works

By CBSNews.com staff CBSNews.com staff

March 30, 1998 / 3:27 PM EST / CBS

The legal issues facing key figures in the "White House Under Fire" case are numerous and complex. To help understand the various legal.procedures that involve President Clinton and the White House, we turn to CBS News Legal Correspondent Kristin Jeannette-Meyers for a briefing.size>

Q: Has the Supreme Court ruled on impeachment?
A: According to the U.S. Constitution, a sitting president can be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors," nothing more specific. It is up to Congress to determine what
constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor." In the Nixon
case, the Judiciary Committee was preparing impeachment
articles for obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and
defying Congress. Nixon resigned.

Q: If independent prosecutor Kenneth Starr found any evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the president, could he seek an indictment against Mr. Clinton and begin a
criminal prosecution? Or would he have to hand over
any information he uncovers to the House?
A: It is theoretically an open question whether a sitting
president can be indicted. The law is silent because it has
never happened. What definitely can happen are
impeachment proceedings in Congress. The statute
authorizing the Independent Counsel seems to point in that
direction, as it specifically allows Starr to turn over to
Congress any evidence of criminal wrongdoing he may
uncover about Mr. Clinton. Most likely, the president would
not be indicted and Starr would turn over evidence to
Congress. If a President is impeached and removed from
office, he can then be tried for whatever crimes he is accused
of, unless he is pardoned

Q: If the evidence supports all the allegations against
Mr. Clinton, what crimes could he be charged with?
A: It appears Kenneth Starr is looking into perjury,
suborning perjury, tampering with a witness, obstructing
justice, and conspiracy to commit all of the above.

Q: What is the difference between perjury and
subornation of perjury?
A: Perjury is a false statement, made under oath, about a
matter material to the underlying matter. Suborning perjury is
encouraging someone else to commit perjury.

Q: Why are Paula Jones' lawyers allowed to delve into the president's sexual history? What is the relevance of Linda Tripp's and Monica Lewinsky's testimony?
A: Jones is alleging Mr. Clinton has engaged in a "pattern of behavior" in which people who worked for him and agreed to his requests for sexual favors were rewarded, whereas people who worked for him and denied his sexual advances were punished. Because of this, charges about Mr. Clinton's behavior with other women who worked for him could be relevant. But as we learned on January 29, Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp will not be a part of the Jones lawsuit. The judge ruled it was not "essential" to the case, and the delay it would cause would be too great.

Q: What is an independent counsel, and how is it different from a criminal prosecutor?
A: An independent counsel is authorized by Congress to act as a criminal prosecutor in matters that may involve the president or the executive branch. This is necessary because the Justice Department, the chief law enforcement agency, is a part of the executive branch. The attorney general is appointed by the president, and it is thought that it would appear improper to have a part of the executive branch investigating itself

Q: Is it legal to tape a telephone conversation without a person's consent in Maryland? (That is where Linda Tripp recorded Lewinsky's phone calls to her.)
A: No. Maryland is a one of the few states that requires everyone on the tape know the conversation is being recorded. But a Maryland Appeals Court has recently ruled that because the law is so new and unpublicized, if the person taping did not know it was against the law, they are not accountable. Usually ignorance of the law is never an excuse, but to prosecute Tripp, it would need to be proven that she knew it was illegal. That would be difficult. Ironically, after this story, it would be hard for anyone in Maryland to now claim they did not know about the law.

Q. What is the role of the grand jury in an investigation such as Ken Starr's?

A. According to the Supreme Court, the "ancient" role of the federal grand jury is twofold: "determining if there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, AND protecting citizens against unfounded criminal prosecutions." To pursue these ends, the grand jury is given many tools, including, most importantly, subpoena power - the power to compel the testimony ofwitnesses and the production of documents and other evidence. At the end of the investigation, there may or may not be an indictment --hus fulfilling the two goals set forth by the Supreme Court

Q. Who decides what witnesses are called and what issues are considered?

A. In this case, Ken Starr, who is authorized by a special, separate statute, received permission to expand th Whitewater Investigation into the Lewinsky matter from both the Justice Department (Janet Reno) and a special 3-judge panel. This is the process required by the Office of Independent Counsel statute.

Q. Do jurors usually investigate what witnesses or targets are saying about the prosecutors?

A. No. You'll notice Starr seems to have backed away from the "Sidney Blumenthal incident.". However, IF witnesses or targets were telling lies about prosecutors to the extent that other witnesses were frightened and refused to co-operate, it is POSSIBLE an "obstruction of justice" charge could be brought. But that is VERY unlikely, because of First Amendment concerns

Q. Is this a legitimate issue for jurors to consider?

A. Perhaps. As I mentioned before, one COULD construct a scenario where obstruction-of-justice issues could arise, but at this point, we have no idea exactly what Starr believed Blumenthal may have been doing.