<<the unlimited inquisition under the 'rule of law' that isn't.>>
I agree. I think that Starr acted within his mandate, but I think the mandate was flawed. IMHO, the OIC statute will undergo, shall we say, some much needed changes after this "affair".
As far as the questioning goes - if I were under oath in a Grand Jury setting and the questioning proceeded as you suggest, I would refuse to answer. If the judge insisted that the questions were relevant, I would concede the issue and answer truthfully, no matter how unpleasant that might be. I don't buy your explanation of Clinton's actions.
The GJ process has been with us since before the founding of the U.S., and has been subject to the same kind of abuses all along. Why is it only now becoming a problem? Do you really believe that Clinton is the first person to be asked questions he found embarrassing? Do you really think it's okay or understandable that people lie about something under investigation because telling the truth might embarrass them?
The questioning methods and circumstances that Clinton was under were no different from those undergone by people every day. It would not be acceptable for them to lie under oath, and it's not acceptable for the President to do so.
I understand that you were not condoning Clinton's actions, but were explaining the American reaction to it, and I agree with your analysis completely. It just yanks my chain (if you'll pardon the expression) to see any rationalization even remotely implying that lying under oath is understandable, because I truly do believe that the only thing keeping us free is that everyone is subject to the same laws. |
