OT
Zeev
Respectfully disagree with your train of logic. Do agree with that portion which contends that the sexual aspect is a moral question.
However, we need to look beyond the sexual affair, it is but the
vehicle.
The question is one of the rule of law. Perjury was committed when
sworn testimony was given in a deposition to a Federal Court that
sexual contact did not occur as defined by that court. The
definition of what constituted a sexual act was given to Clinton and
he replied affirmatively that he understood that definition. Obstruction of justice was committed when he introduced to that Federal Court the sworn affidavit of Monica Lewinsky denying that
they had a sexual relationship and gave sworn testimony that it was an
accurate and truthful rendition of events while knowing it to be false.
These are strong violations of law, which Clinton, as one who taught
law at one point, must have been fully aware of at the time he made
them.
We cannot have a President who is guilty of committing felonies remain
in office. The Impeachment Process is that specific process outlined
in the Constitution to prove or disprove the evidence which has been
presented, let it proceed.
It is my understanding that the term "High crimes and misdemeanors"
was discussed in the Federalist Papers as being extremely broad in
scope, to include not only specific transgressions of statutory law,
but to extend to personal conduct and demeanor rendering the subject
unfit to serve. (The primary dictionary definition of misdemeanor being "misbehaving").
However, if you do wish to view matters from a religious viewpoint,
perhaps it would be beneficial to consider "Thou shall not bear
false witness;" which historically, in many societies, constituted grounds for immediate execution (going back to Hammurabi) .
Regards, Dipsey |
