I have been trying to establish the best scenario for Clinton as a possibility.
Another, more realistic, less ideal and partisan, context exists.
Lets assume Clinton had enough reason to weigh what he got from the perjury against what he lost by the truth. Further, he weighed his chances of escaping undetected, and his chances of arguing his way out on appeal.
Motives existed, both legit and pathological. They've been discussed, and, duh, the arguments came down heavier on lying. The more likely of escape, the less legit reasons there had to be, and vice cersa.
Had he no chance on appeal, and an assurance of detection did he lie to preserve, by delay, what he was protecting? Was Monica's secret sex, and related fallout, so important that he willingly became a criminal?
Was it surety of escape or exoneration that had him shamelessly lie. Or was it the great value he held in store for what he protected that made him sacrifice his 'good name'? You argue escape; I argue exoneration. It could be sacrifice.
Of course it could be, oh f*ck it, I'll do what keeps me in the game and hope it works out, or I get another chance. This last is often accorded to Clinton as his philosophy, so maybe that was all. Without some surprises in the future, that sounds most accurate to me.
That philosophy appeals to me, I wonder where the pitfalls lay? |
