Don, I was under the impression that both Clinton and Monica stated that there was no penetration. Where Monica and Clinton differ is in the "fondling part" (touching breasts and her private parts), she said he did, he says he did not (does a cigar count? <VBG>). On this part, I am sure most people would want to believe Monica, but in a perjury situation it is not what most people want to believe, but the weight of evidence, preferably eye witnesses or at least corroborating evidences. Otherwise it is "his word" against "her words", both lied (she did say in the Jones affair that she did not) to some extent, so who do you believe.
Don, as I said in a prior post here, I am not concerned about Clinton and his office tenure, I am concerned that this will set a precedent to the impeachment process, a precedent so weak, that no president will dare stand in opposition of the opposing party for fear that after $40 MM and four year, a prosecutor may find some trivial, yet impeachable offenses. That is where the importance of this crisis lay. As strange as it sounds, if we want to protect our form of government and protect future president from blackmails of the worst kind, we have to oppose the proposed impeachment proceedings if what Starr has shown in his report is all he has to show.
I can see an entrepreneurial soul training armies of "harlets" for the sole end of hiring these out to the opposing party just to "entrap" the next president.
Zeev
|
