Let me start out by saying what this is NOT.  This is NOT a comment no the Clinton presidency in general or on the man himself.  This is NOT an attempt to show that Clinton cannot be impeached.  Impeachment is a political, not legal, process, and therefore it is, in the end, what the House and Senate say it is.  Finally, this does NOT relate to any other potential investigation of Clinton: only the claim of perjury. 

Having said that, let's get under way with a basic assumption.  For the sake of argument, I am going to assume that Bill Clinton did commit perjury in either his deposition in the Jones case or his appearance before Ken Starr's grand jury.  There's no point in arguing about what is and is not material or what the definition of "is" is.  So, assume that Clinton did perjure himself. 

With that out of the way, let's turn to the Constitution itself.  Section IV, Article II of the Constitution states that "The President . . . shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."  An immediate problem, of course, is that perjury is not specifically listed as one of the acts which must lead to impeachment.  Only treason and bribery are mentioned.  It is not unreasonable to suggest that the framers intended the phrase "other high crimes and misdemeanors" to include only acts of similar gravity.  So, we must ask, is perjury on the same level as treason and bribery? 

For treason the simple answer is quite definitely "no."  Treason is the only crime defined at all in the Constitution itself, which alone suggests its gravity.  In addition, penalties for treason are very harsh.  Treason against the United States itself is punishable by either death or imprisonment of more than five years and a fine of more than $10,000.  In addition, that person may never hold office in the United States again.  18 U.S.C. 2381.  There are state provisions for treason as well (although it would be hard to imagine how one could commit treason against, say, West Virginia, and not against the United States).  West Virginia, which is enlightened enough not to execute people, provides for treason to be penalized with life in prison if convicted or three to ten years in prison if pled.  W.Va. Code 61-1-2. 

Let's turn our attention to the other enunciated impeachable act, bribery.  While bribery is not as serious an offense as treason, possible punishments would suggest it is significantly more serious than perjury.  A person who bribes a federal official (or, indeed, the official who accepted the bribe), for instance, can receive up to fifteen years in prison and can never again hold office in the United States.  18 U.S.C. 201.  West Virginia also prevents a person convicted of bribery to hold office, in addition to implementing a one to ten year prison term.  W.Va. Code 61-5-4.

For comparison, let's look at the perjury provisions for the federal system and West Virginia.  If a person perjures himself in a federal court (which would cover Clinton in either case), the maximum penalty he could incur is five years in prison.  18 U.S.C. 1621. Severe?  Yes, and certainly five years in a federal penitentiary would be no fun (although one would assume the perjurers are not sent to Marion).  However, that maximum just happens to coincide with the minimum penalty for treason.  In addition, no perjurer has to give up her right to run for office. 

West Virginia is a little harder on perjurers, but not in any way that would aid Clinton's inquisitors.  True, a person who perjures himself in West Virginia can be sent to prison for between one and ten years.  W.Va. Code 61-5-3.  But, perjury is very narrowly defined in West Virginia, applying only to a material lie in a felony trial.  W.Va. Code 61-5-1.  Therefore, it does not include civil cases.  In fact, any lie in court other than in a felony trial in West Virginia is the crime of false swearing, a misdemeanor punishable by no more than a year in jail.  W.Va. Code 61-5-2.  To the best of my knowledge, only in some states can a person be committed for life for perjury, such as where he lied under oath in a death penalty trial. 
 
As can be seen from the above discussion, to say that treason, bribery, and perjury in a civil case involving consensual private conduct are equivalent is simply wrong.  The most striking disparity is in terms of penalty: a person can be put to death for treason, while a perjurer in the same system goes home, alive, after five years in prison.  A person could spend three times the amount of time in prison for bribery as opposed to perjury.  But perhaps the most compelling argument against the equivalency of treason, bribery, and perjury is in the effect on political rights.

Everyone in this country has the right to run for political office, subject to very few restrictions (in theory at least).  The ability to run for office is almost as essential to the democratic foundations of this country as the franchise itself.  Note, then, that those who commit treason or bribery lose that right in the federal system.  Perjurers do not.  That is a huge distinction.  The elimination of the right to run for office puts bribery and treason in a class above other non-physical felonies (a murderer would retain the right to run, but that is obviously as serious as treason, for example).  Therefore, only offenses of that class could reasonably be deemed "high crimes and misdemeanors".

Perjury, particularly of the kind which Clinton has committed, simply does not raise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors".  To say it does is intellectually dishonest and an obvious political decision.  That does not mitigate the seriousness of the underlying offense.  I happen to think that if I were to judge Clinton in a trial after he left office, I would come down pretty hard on him.  Impeachment, however, is much different.  It is a higher standard than simply "was a crime committed."  It must be a serious crime, one that goes to the foundation of our government.  Clinton's acts simply aren't.