I have made perfectly clear that I consider Starr's whole case not very impressive, or serious. Except in the attention it has gotten, and the misplaced seriousness with which it is regarded on the Hill, and in the media.
I have hardly evaded the legal charges of perjury and the rest. I have tackled them head on, repeatedly, as you know.
The case for perjury before the GJ is very weak. Even Starr hiself only cites three instances, two of which are extreme Starr reaches, and would go nowhere in court. The third, did he or did he not diddle her, is not proveable perjury. And in the light of his very considerable admissions in that testimony about his improper physical relationship with Lewinsky, also not material. Or put differently, its only materiality is to technically trip him up by proving perjury in the Jones deposition.
The case for perjury in the Jones deposition is also weak, but for more technical reasons. First, the Lewinsky testimony did not have the potential for changing the outcome of the case. The judge ruled so herself when she threw the line of testimony out as "not essential" to the fair resolution of Paula Jones' lawsuit.
Even had she not done so it would not be perjury. The President was misleading, without uttering any material or significant narrowly defined falsehood. The public understandably applies the wrong standard here, and considers being intentionally misleading and lying the same thing. That may be true, but then lying is not always perjury. The Supreme Court has made that abundantly clear.
exchange2000.com
Starr's own evidence for obstruction of justice and witness tampering doesn't make a convincing case, even before I hear the President's case (beyond his rather skillful GJ testimony).
Starr's case for misuse of office is laughable. I'm referring to Starr's claim that telling his cabinet the same thing he was telling everybody else is obstruction of justice and misuse of office. Similarly Starr's argument that Clinton's assertion of priveleges for court test is obstruction and misuse of office. All risible.
I think Starr has a very bad case.
I further think he has strived mightily to make a huge sounding collection of offenses out of at base very little.
Doug
|
