Dwight, you made some interesting points last evening. It was a well
constructed and obviously well thought out post.
I don't think anyone questions whether the tryst was ill advised. Obviously it was.
The idiocy of the whole affair, exacerbated by the knowledge that he was under
special scrutiny due to the Jones case shows Clinton acted foolishly.
Historically, being a fool and president are not mutually exclusive. Arguably,
they go hand in hand.
By itself a reason for removal from office? Of course not.
The question then becomes was the lie under oath cause for removal from
office.
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.....LYING UNDER OATH.....important
sounding concepts...and they are important ...indeed CRITICAL
concepts.....but they are trivialized when used in this context.....like killing
a fly by dropping a piano on it.
Alledgedly, "Paula would you kiss it..............
Monica honey....let's just keep this 'tween you and me okay darlin'................
I never had sex with that women."
Unseemly, childish, showing poor judgement? Yep, all of those.
In fact, reasons for not being voted into office.
Impeachable offense?......possibly, technically.....but removal from office for that
would be absurd. The precedent, rather than insuring more able leaders, would
result in an endless harangue...special prosecutors, partisan politics etc.
(As an addendum, we probable all agree that rules pertaining to the special
prosecutor will be amended next year when it's renewal comes up...by
democrats and republicans alike).
Like it or not.....grey areas exist and rational people learn to deal with them.
If Starr's reports brings proof of crimes more substantive than those
enumerated above, then kick him out...if and until....these "crimes" don't
suffice.
Stan |
