You are quite correct that the Times article is well-reasoned and articulate in stating where Clinton wallows today. Andrew Sullivan rarely disappoints those interested in the truth. But guess what, there is also some measure of sanity left on the Dem Left: the Washington Post, (the equal of the Dem NYT and almost as prestigious as the Times), in effect says "Vindication? Please don't be so asinine":
Lead editorial WP:
Lingering Questions
Sunday, April 5, 1998; Page C06
DEMOCRATS lost no time using the dismissal of Paula Jones's sexual
harassment case to pressure independent counsel Kenneth Starr to wrap
up his criminal investigation. The argument is somewhat muddled, but it
seems to be that the public does not care much about the remaining
allegations, that Mr. Starr's rather unpopular investigation has gone on too
long already, and that the Jones win provides a kind of global vindication
for the president.
Mr. Starr should, like all independent counsels, conduct his probe as
quickly as he can, but the suggestion that the dismissal of the Jones case
should hasten or moot the rest of his investigation is wrongheaded. Mr.
Starr has a series of questions before him that are of varying degrees of
public importance but which all require answers before he can fold up
shop. These questions include:
Whether, as Mr. Starr's original mandate put it, "any individuals or entities
have committed a violation of federal criminal law . . . relating in any way
to James B. McDougal's, President William Jefferson Clinton's, or Mrs.
Hillary Rodham Clinton's relationships" with Madison Guaranty Savings
and Loan Association.
Whether White House officials lied to investigators probing the firing of the
White House Travel Office employees.
Whether White House officials broke any laws when they acquired and
hoarded hundreds of FBI background files on prominent Republicans.
Whether the president committed perjury when he denied under oath
groping Kathleen Willey and having a sexual relationship with Monica
Lewinsky.
Whether the president urged Ms. Lewinsky to submit a false affidavit to a
federal court.
Whether any White House official obstructed justice (or conspired to do
so) by getting Ms. Lewinsky a job or by giving "talking points" to Linda
Tripp to change her testimony concerning Ms. Willey's encounter with the
president.
It is worth emphasizing that the importance of none of these questions
depends on the merits of Ms. Jones's case. If it is important -- and we
believe that it is -- for the public to know whether the president lied under
oath and obstructed justice, it should not be less so because the president
ultimately prevailed in the case. Mr. Starr is in the unenviable position of
running an investigation of a distasteful subject concerning the president in a
politically charged environment while being, himself, under assault. He has
done himself no favors with his extracurricular political activities, his
occasionally inappropriate subpoenas and his almost casual disregard for
the appearance of impartiality. But neither these shortcomings nor the
summary judgment in the Jones case should be read to prejudge the
questions his investigation must ultimately answer. Mr. Starr's obligation
remains unchanged: He needs to address the matters within his jurisdiction
thoroughly and expeditiously.
washingtonpost.com
Btw, if you watched Cokie this morning you will have seen Stuart Taylor stating that Starr has the goods on Clinton for at least 10 separate counts of perjury plus obstruction of justice. He asserts that Clinton's ship will be sunk - which is why Clinton & Cronies do everything to obstruct and delay.
The best is yet to come.(No pun intended) |
