Hi j g cordes; This morning the TVs we keep running in the
trading office (with that program with the little ticker running
across the bottom of the screen) had almost nothing but
Clinton on, and it was dull as hell.
Of course I was trading, but the only really perjurious thing
I saw was his claim that he could not remember being
alone with Monica.
It may be that he has successfully avoided technical
perjury, but if this is so, then it is the worst disaster in
our nation's recent legal history.
The obvious effect would be for witnesses to avoid
telling the truth, and the whole truth. I suppose they
would still tell nothing but the truth.
The less obvious effect would be for lawyers to have
to ask numerous, extraordinarily worded questions to
defendants in order to avoid semantic crap. If we,
as a people, are unable to agree on what simple
English means, we are unable to determine what
truth or guilt are, and we should probably return to
the monarchy once prevalent in the world. At least
you would then know who was on your side.
On the other hand, if Clinton had been before a judge,
he would have been forced to answer the questions
he avoided by misdirection. The judge would order
him to respond.
As I said before, these offenses are impeachable, but
I don't think he will resign until the other Starr reports
hit the fan. That should be before the election.
The local democratic party operatives are horrified by
what they see happening in November, according
to the paper this morning. I'll post a link when I find
one...
-- Carl |
