JLA,
Your argument doesn't get any better by repeating it. I will grant you that perjury is not about sex, but all the other charges, it seems to me, are about sex. For example, this whole charge of having a "cover story" is not about obstruction of justice, it is about hiding the fact that you are having an affair. When Clinton concocted his "story" with Lewinsky, he wanted to hide his affair from aides, his wife, the press etc. He was not trying to hide anything from a court of law or from subpoena. In fact, if you look at the time line, he could not have obstructed justice with regard to Lewinsky and Currie because he would have had no inkling that they were going to be subpoenaed by the Jones lawyers or the Grand Jury. Same with the attempt to find her a job: Clinton wanted Lewinsky out-of-the-picture because he was embarrassed that she was going to be discovered by the public. When Lewinsky suggested that he put her in touch with Jordan, that fit right in with his desires. His only concern was keeping his secret from everyone. Just because "everyone" turned out later to include the Jones lawyers does not convert his actions into obstruction of justice. So, in fact, Starr has simply taken fairly pedestrian attempts to keep an embarrassing secret into impeachable offenses. That is why most of the American people are reaching the conclusion that this report is mostly a highly public "outing" of the President's sexual proclivities. Starr and Congress have one crime: Clinton perjured himself in the Jones deposition. If that is an impeachable offense, so be it, but everything else is high-priced titilating pornographic window-dressing.
Doughboy. |
