"Why did he lie?" Isn't this the whole shebang? Assume the table of alternative facts:
He was guilty of SH, and
1 The Discovery process was illegal, but was needed to show guilt.
2 The Discovery process was legal and needed for proof [of guilt].
3 The Discovery Process was legal, but not needed for proof [of guilt].
He was Not guilty of SH, and
4 The Discovery process was illegal.
5 The Discovery process was legal and needed for proof [of innocence].
6 The Discovery Process was legal, but not needed for proof [either way].
I admit any could be true.
1,2,3 - especially 1,2 - have little support from evidence unearthed by Starr's investigation, essentially a stand in for the Discovery process.
3 falls back on the Arkansas evidence, without Discovery, which is not strong.
You support 2 or 3, only, but to me the facts aren't persuasive, as above.
2 confirms the worst of Clinton's criminality.
3,6 make the lie criminal, but sow distrust of the law. A legal piling on. Sympathy would generate for a criminal action. I suspect this is what you'd ascribe to the country in the impeachment. 'He lied to protect his wife, any man would.'
1 denigrates the law also. 'He got off on a technicality.'
5 also creates bad feeling toward the law. 'The law asks one to cut off his nose to save his face.'
Leaving 4 to get my support. You 2, me 4.
Since any could be true, and since wishing won't change the truth, why I support 4 starts with why not 2. [Actually, I also disregard 1,3,5,6 since I'd prefer to think well of the law.] Basically 2 is straightforward and common. Lying, low life criminals are nothing new. There will be no surprise by 2. That Clinton has walked a fine line along the edge of criminality can't be denied. I would prefer to think he has not strayed over. I would prefer to believe it comes from practice in hard circumstances with being on the edge and an unwillingness to sacrifice what is his to those with power. So if he shows the worst, I will be disappointed in the man, but not my principles superimposed on him. So, 2, in a word, boring. 4, on the other hand could be a major surprise. Beware the unknown.
So, we are assuming, me sympathetically, you as devil's advocate, that Clinton is not guilty of sexually harassing Paula, and that Judge Wright made a miscall on the Discovery ruling when Clinton testified misleadingly.
The man made 4 objections before her final ruling and more objections during testimony. His legal objections were expended, it was either give in [to the assumed bad ruling], allow the court to exceed its authority, and suffer unlawful damages, or lie. Given the assumptions, the lie functions as another objection. [same as your suggestion, they are both contemptuous.] Gotten away with, no harm to the case, or him, or this particular SH law. Not revealed, the lie doesn't enter the reality or history of written law, so no harm to Law. Not gotten away with, the information he would not have discovered is not discovered until the lie issue is decided. [at least, sans wildcard starr] Few, if any, other legal options exist that would either cause no harm or preserve preventing information disclosure. This is a pretty neat trick, [sleight of hand, not pick of pocket] although too close to the edge for most. It didn't work as it should have because of extra-judicial intervention, not because the judiciary branch and the law couldn't handle it.
Had it been any other man with a decade old civil case from Arkansas, rather than the one man who is not subject to the same laws as you and I, it would have progressed: he is caught in lie; judge rules it is lie; he appeals judge to another court and presents his case that this law [of Discovery] does not apply to him from these and these circumstances in the law, as written [not from any presidential exemption]. The appeals court says your right, the judge misunderstood the law, she had no authority to use it to order you to testify on these matters, and therefore you can't have disobeyed her. Retry the case from there. Judge Wright hears the rest of the case, and makes her decision on Paula's complaint. Nice and legal all, even incorporating a deliberate illegality. All win.
Remember how long ago the case stalled, 15+ months? Only this month did Judge Wright rule, rather perfunctorily, that Clinton had defrauded the court. Clinton has yet to decide to pay the fine or to appeal.
In other words, until this month, no authority in the judicial branch had charged the President with being a criminal. Everyone in this forum, but me, has him strapped to the chair. Clinton has not even had the opportunity to plead his case. How do you define witch hunt? Prejudice?
I could continue; enough to go with. |
