jbe, here is the first thread at SI dedicated to the topic of Clinton/Lewinsky:
Subject 18974
That thread was started a day or so after the Monica/Tripp tapes story was broke by Drudge. There are at this point 19,431 comments posted there.
I started reading that thread I believe on the Monday following the weekend after the story broke, so I missed the first 300-400 posts, but I went back and caught up, and I think I read them all (the first 300-400 that I had missed at first).
There was a time when, long after the Clinton denials were made public by him, voluntarily as you know, that I became tired of the saga, and stopped following the thread. When Lewinsky got transactional immunity, I started following the thread again.
Since day one, the Clinton supporters have villified and trashed Starr, Drudge, Monica, and of course, Linda Tripp. Furthermore, much weight was placed, by Clinton apologists, on Clinton's vehement denials of the sexual affair in both the Jones lawsuit, and the public denial of Clinton, in his sanctimonious, finger-wagging TV appearance.
Yet, I did not believe Mr. Clinton, and felt that he had undoubtedly perjured himself in the Jones lawsuit, primarily for political reasons.
It is clear that law gives no excuses for perjury. It obviously matters little whether or not the case is later dismissed: Else we would see a trend where the side which considers it has a chance to have a case dismissed, will begin to vigorously lie, knowing it may not be able to be held against them if they prevail. Clearly that's not a good thing, and in any case there is no basis in law for that rationale.
The situation in the beginning was divided into two camps: those whe thought Clinton was lying, and those who didn't. Now the current situation is divided into two camps still: those who think that Clinton should face some kind of real consequence for his illegal action, and those who think he should be let off.
That is the current reality: You're either an apologist for Clinton, or you want Clinton to be held responsible in a tangible way.
The Jones case is water under the bridge for now, and little time has been spent here discussing that, although there has been some discussion on ocassion. But clearly the Judge has made her decision, and we are stuck with that, at least at this juncture.
I do believe though, that Judge Susan W-W clearly confused and hurt the whole case when she first determined that Clinton's other extramarital affairs, if any, were material to the case, and then she reversed herself and declared them to be not material. Meanwhile, Clinton perjured himself because of her first decision that it was material. But, since obviously the outcome of a case never has any bearing on whether or not perjury is acceptable, then the only question that Congress has to ask is, did he commit a felony crime, which is what perjury is. Perjury is a form of Obstruction of Justice, and the Supreme Court considers perjury to be a "serious offense".
I think it's clear that Clinton did commit perjury on a bare minimum of one occasion, even using his version of what sex is. Using the court's version, he committed perjury again if we believe Monica. And if we take the court's definition of sex and see the part where it says "any person", and conclude that Clinton is a person, then Clinton perjured himself probably 10 or more times in his Jones deposition, and many more times in his Grand Jury testimony. So I think the die is cast, and Clinton may as well admit that he's a perjurer, a prepare to accept the consequences of that. |
