Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (4976)	9/23/1998 12:22:00 PM
From: Les H	Respond to of 67261

The Clinton doctrine Here's the trouble with the Clinton grand jury tape: Yes, it proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that the president is a liar -- but people don't care. Even before the tape aired on national television, 75 percent of Americans, according to the polls most favorable toward Clinton, believed he was a liar. They don't trust him. Almost nobody does. They wouldn't buy a used car from him, but, yet, 50 percent of the public doesn't want him ditched as president. So, as a device to persuade public opinion, the videotape testimony was useless. In fact, it has actually helped Clinton. He was bleeding politically before it aired. The weekend talk shows before the airing were filled with discussions of impeachment -- not so much "if," but "when." Even George Stephanopoulos pronounced Clinton was toast. Strangely, the fact that the video didn't live up to the hype actually served to relieve some of the building pressure, to halt the momentum toward inevitable congressional action. And I think Clinton and his apologists understood all along this would be the case. Their protests about the airing of the tape were designed to focus attention on an unloaded "smoking gun." Clinton was proud of his performance in that hearing. It was a performance he had rehearsed and executed almost flawlessly. He expected that tape to be seen by the American people the day he gave that performance. The protests leading up to it were a diversion. So were the leaks leading up to its release. I read reports that Clinton actually stormed out of the room after the cigar question was asked. The fact is, Clinton was a pretty good witness -- one just sympathetic enough to maintain his constituency. On the other hand, Kenneth Starr's prosecutors were unprofessional, wimpy, unfocused. They never forced Clinton to answer questions directly. Having testified more than a few times in depositions and in court proceedings, I can tell you ordinary citizens do not have that luxury. You can plead the Fifth Amendment, and take the heat for doing that. But you cannot simply refuse to answer direct questions because you don't feel like it. That's what Clinton did. And Starr's prosecutors let him get away with it. They also never went in for the kill the way aggressive prosecutors are trained to do. Kathleen Willey testified that Clinton had called her to his hotel room. Prosecutors had phone records proving two calls were placed to her from his room that night. Clinton had no recollection of that. In fact, 164 times during the four-hour session, Clinton, the politician with the best memory Vernon Jordan ever met, had no recollection of key facts. Yet, prosecutors never cornered Clinton. They never asked him to imagine what the nature of those calls were. She remembered clearly that he was hitting on her. He couldn't remember anything. Here was a chance to nail him. One witness had strong recollections, the other had none. Once again, they changed the subject, stymied by Clinton's persistent failed memory. It was a sad spectacle that reinforced my belief that, if it's up to Kenneth Starr and company, Clinton serves out his full term of office. He actually managed to turn Clinton, a serial victimizer of women, into a victim himself. Go figure. Is that an accident? Is that incompetence? Is that lack of prosecutorial experience? Or is that by design? In spite of all that, the tape proves conclusively that Clinton misused Monica Lewinsky is a most despicable way. He led her on. He encouraged her temptations. He recklessly jeopardized not only his presidency but national security for a few moments of lustful pleasure with an intern barely into adulthood. He lied about it, opening himself up to blackmail. By the standards of federal guidelines he himself approved, he sexually harassed her. After all, he had the power in the relationship -- the power to promote her, give her raises, get her new jobs, introduce her to the right people. That is a particularly interesting point given the fact that this whole scandal was born in a sexual harassment lawsuit against the president. It's also clear from the testimony that Clinton perjured himself in the Paula Jones case and encouraged Lewinsky to do the same. Clinton as much as admitted this in the grand jury testimony. But prosecutors failed to underline his admissions in a way that made them understandable to the average viewer -- and maybe the average grand juror. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the testimony is Clinton's unbridled arrogance. He boasts about his unwillingness to be "helpful" in his Jones testimony. When asked if he honored his oath to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth," the chief law enforcement official in the nation split legalistic hairs. What an example he sets for America. His half-truths, his purposeful deceptions, his cynical distortions, his damnable lies may redefine jurisprudence for the next generation. Perhaps it will become known as "the Clinton Doctrine." It certainly will unless Congress acts swiftly and decisively to remove from office this dangerous pretender to the presidency.