We really don't know whether the grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA operative's identity and related misbehavior will hand down indictments for violations of the Espionage Act or other secrecy laws, or "just" indictments for perjury, false statements to federal investigators, etc. In anticipation of the latter possibility, Republican spinners are already out there suggesting that perjury is just a "technicality." It's easy to lampoon the blatant hypocrisy compared to what they said in the Clinton years. Here's an elegant example of that from NewMexiKen. But as the party that feeds on cynicism and distrust of government, the Republicans will settle for having the public reaction to a storm of perjury indictments be, "Now that the roles are reversed, Republicans think perjury is no big deal and Democrats think it's a serious crime."
But as the party that feeds on cynicism and distrust of government, the Republicans will settle for having the public reaction to a storm of perjury indictments be, "Now that the roles are reversed, Republicans think perjury is no big deal and Democrats think it's a serious crime." And it is easy for liberals, a lot of whom don't particularly like Clinton, to want to throw him over the side instead of defending him. But as those days come back to haunt us now, it is important to remember that Clinton's best defense wasn't that he was lying about a blow job, or even that the lawsuit against him was funded by right wing nuts specifically for the purpose of bringing him down, it was that what he said was Not Perjury.
The key excerpt of Clinton's deposition in the Paula Jones sexual harassment suit is here. Deposition Exhibit One in that case was a definition of "Sexual Relations" as when a person knowingly engages in or causes "contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person." The alleged perjury was when Clinton denied under oath that he had had "Sexual Relations" as defined in the exhibit with Monica Lewinsky.
"Perjury" has a long and technical definition best explained by your own criminal defense counsel (here is the federal statute for perjury before a grand jury, courtesy of TalkLeft), but the nutshell version is that it involves knowingly making a materially false statement under oath.
Now the key is that it was possible under Deposition Exhibit One to believe that being a totally passive participant in oral sex did not constitute "Sexual Relations" as defined in Deposition Exhibit One. Also, whether Clinton's testimony was "materially false" given the technical definition of Deposition Exhibit One is open to question. To me, that is the reason why Clinton should not have been impeached, and it is also the reason why Clinton got off with nothing but action against his license to practice law in Arkansas.
The Republicans know that most Democrats aren't terribly happy to defend Clinton's behavior on the merits, but it is important to be able to explain why what Clinton said just wasn't perjury, as opposed to merely not being important enough to merit impeachment.