To: j_b who wrote (2396 ) 8/21/1998 12:30:00 PM From: Doughboy Read Replies (4) | Respond to
In my view, no, we should go after the President for little stuff. As I've tried to get across (cynically perhaps), all of us have done the little stuff, though we may not realize that it's a federal crime. How many of us have fudged the taxes on something we knew we could get away with (tax evasion)? How many of us lied on a job application or resume (mail fraud)? How many of us lied to a police officer about how fast we were actually traveling (obstruction of justice)? Is every "I didn't see that stop sign, officer" worth an investigation, lie detector, and an oath to be truthful? I think that's not what America is all about. Because we get away with the little stuff every day, it only goes to reason that Presidents commit the little stuff too, and I don't make too much of a fuss about it. That doesn't mean that we're treating him any different. It means that we admit that the President is under such intense scrutiny all the time, we have to be a little more tolerant about his behavior. Also, as I believe David Gergen was talking about one night, the President has a private side as well as being head of state. By prosecuting his private behavior, we are necessarily crippling our own head of state. I think that cautions against going after the big guy unless we really really have the goods on him, and have it on something that matter to his performance as the head of state. IMO, then, going after Nixon thru his food chain was far more justifiable because in that case, the conduct was part of Nixon's public function. His was public corruption, to a certain extent. Clinton's activities are purely private.
