To: pezz who wrote (885 ) 8/9/1998 11:36:00 PM From: halfscot Read Replies (1) | Respond to
You say I believe one but not the other. s -and I don't mean sex . I'm willing to state that if this is only about sex with Monica Lewinsky and his lying about it then impeachment is out of the question. I would hate to see a president drummed out of office, even this president (admitting my biases), on this issue alone and, thus, equating it with what Nixon did to bring about the beginning of impeachment proceedings against him. did do the same as Nixon, to wit: suborning of perjury, intimidation of witnesses, influence peddling, abusal of power, soliciting the FBI and CIA for unlawful and unethical purposes and violation of privacy, etc., etc. These acts are impeachable acts and should be pursued as such, as I'm sure but the most zealous partisans would agree. And saying these acts were part of consensual sex thereby making all the following acts inconsequential strikes at the heart of hypocrisy and our justice system. It was stated many times during Watergate if Nixon had come clean about the Watergate burglary he would have been chastised and everybody would have gone on their way but, instead, all the illegal acts that followed stemmed from this 'third rate burglary' just as Clinton's potential illegal acts may end up stemming from 'consensual sex'. I must state, though, I feel many other illegal acts will be revealed that took place well before this case once Starr's report is released. We'll see, won't we.
