Johannes,
<<Clinton was not at liberty to lie and cheat in order not to have those charges explored by the court. Once the Court turned its cold Eye toward Lewinsky, Clinton was bound by sacred oath to respect that Court, delivering to it the truth. He did not do this. He chose to instead show contempt for the Court. This is disallowed in our system.>>
I understand people refusing to concede facts are proven when the evidence weighs heavily against them. There is always so much which may impact, that completeness is truly impossible. I understand people who ascribe unusual characteristics to those they are against, conspiracies and moral degeneracy come to mind. People do vary. But I do not understand the retreat to moral and principle simplicity and absolutism.
Our system, essentially Americas sole contribution to the political universe, is Limited Government as implemented by Separation of Powers. Separation means each area has complete power in places, and none in other's areas. [Not to disallow one area acting as agent for another.] The highest Separation in America does not occur between legislative, judicial, and executive, it is between the Federal government, the Local governments, and each individual citizen. The court system is only a part of a part of our country.
My argument begins that the court may have exceeded its authority. The simple possibility is beyond question. It is the heart and sole of America.
1) The argument I then raise is that, indeed, the facts support the court having exceeded its authority by demanding immaterial testimony. [This is an argument of fact, so not established.]
2) I then point to our agreement that Clinton stood to suffer real damages. [This is thus no argument.]
3) I then bring attention to the fact of the damages being:
3a) irreparable, and so not amenable to fixing after the fact. [This is an argument of fact.] and
3b) done within the actual court process, disclosure. [Again, an arguable fact.]
Because 1)the court is in error, and 2)because the court is the scene and the 3)instrument of the damages, the only place to stop the impending destruction was in the court. 3a and b) close the possibility of pleading the 5th, or any other, as an inadequate means to stop the damage. After his traditional attempts to realign the court had been exhausted, he had to go further back, to 1), to stop the damage.
This approach is not a loophole, it is written into and grounds our original Constitution. Had Clinton not invoked this highest right, he would have been disrespectful to the Constitution, allowing a court to do injustice. Having to come to this resort was clearly distasteful to him. The individual citizen must have this right and power to invoke 'immediate appeal', or perhaps, 'immediate mistrial', contending his area of power is supreme over the government areas: governments are forever, individuals are brief. The founders rationale is not mistaken, nor --I think-- inappropriate to this case. But, without doubt, the rationale is true, and good. Under Nazi law, the supremacy of the state and its courts allowed such intrusion into private matters. Using them as only extreme example, not a comparison, the possibility of the law as master is as clear as the king as master.
I look at the ordeal from an Occam's Razor criteria:
On one hand is that the P.J. lawyers, as Officers of the Court, as well-funded, experienced, expert and avowed Clinton enemies, had ability and motive to influence an unsophisticated client and an unprepared Judge into errors, and then pass off to an admittedly unfair, more powerful colleague.
On the other hand is a man with no crime to conceal [at least, that is the way I read all the following, thorough investigations.], and so found the civil case less the issue than the legal procedures. That the American System could not provide a way for an innocent man to escape damage from the court procedures speaks to errors of procedure in the lower court. That the man has had a lifetime dealing with civil liberty issues also speaks to his non-conventional, but legally grounded resolution to his dilemma.
No, this is one kind of case where Clinton needn't be a manipulator, but stood the manipulation of those who's intent was corrupt and whose weapon was the Sacred Law.
<<I hope I am misunderstanding that you are actually making a case that grand juries are not allowed to try sexual cases because sex is not found explicitly in the Constitution. If so this is a grave error.>>
I have no doubt grand juries can not try private matters, including sexual behavior; nor no doubt that they are empowered to try crimes of any nature, including sex crimes; nor no doubt that these are not the same, and the border of the two is fraught with likely judicial errors, especially when the judge is setup. |
