Marriage is a legal as well as a personal relationship, which is the basis for the use of the term "illicit" for extra- marital affairs. Although most people would acknowledge mitigating factors in various "affairs of the heart", it is not exactly repressive to think that a certain degree of discipline in this area, predicated upon the value of long term commitment and a sense of honor, should be expected. The society at large is actually fairly tolerant, if the offense is not egregious.
In the Lewinsky matter, I was referring to a common perception that such unequal relationships are inappropriate, regardless of consent, because of the implicit power to reward and punish. Certainly, that at least made the kind of relationship he had a legitimate object of inquiry. In campuses around the country, professors can be dismissed for having an affair with one of their students, regardless of consent, and corporate managers are at least put on the hot seat, and often penalized.
The case against perjury, which I believe to be specious, is technical, and does not address the over- all attempt to subvert the legal proceeding. It is clear enough that he essentially lied under oath, whether or not it is perjury. For a criminal conviction, that might not be enough, but for removal, given his obligation to uphold the law, especially as the chief magistrate, I think it sufficient.
I like your comment on the air strikes, by the way. Most Republicans fell into line because they believed that strong action was deserved in each case, but the timing was highly suspect, and the efficacy of the particular strikes was dubious. It would be terrible if people lost their lives for a public relations stunt..... |
