|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Brooke:
It's not the act, although its morally wrong. It was the lying under oath, Perjury, that I feel should be reason for impeachment. If you or I lied under oath, and were caught, we would be in jail. Is he above the law?
Don
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 9/16/98, at 1:19 PM, Brookemail@xxxxxxx wrote:
>I have the greatest respect for your opinion, Richard. You're not only
>knowledgeable on many subjects -- you're wise. You're absolutely right that
>the Metastock list is the wrong forum for political debate -- or mud-slinging.
>However, after reading all the notes attacking Clinton on the basis of Starr's
>lurid examination of his sex life, I felt compelled to speak out.
>
>I'm deeply troubled by the division in this country right now -- and by the
>Republicans' efforts to bring down a freely and fairly elected president.
>
>In a recent article in the New York Times, sociologist Orlando Patterson says
>it well:
>
>"To the nonlawyer's mind, which holds the highest principle of justice to be
>fariness, Mr. Starr's expedient pursuit of the Lewinsky sex matter after three
>years in which he failed to find any wrongdoing by the President in the
>Whitewater episode smacks of precisely the kind of prosecutorial zealotry that
>Hamilton most feared. If the personal life of the most powerful man in the
>nation can be violated so wantonly by a Government-appointed prosecutor, then
>we are all at risk. ... Americans have traditionally trusted the courts to
>stand as the last barricade against intrusions of this kind. But now it
>appears that any determined opponent can use the legal system to invade our
>most intimate lives and that our prosecutors have almost limitless powers to
>entrap us and to violate the most fundamental element of our freedom."
>
>And: "The public's correct understanding of democracy parallels its concern
>with the preservation of individual liberty. This explains why most Americans
>still side with Mr. Clinton and against Mr. Starr. By objecting to publication
>of details of the President's sex life, Americans have acknowledged that his
>right to privacy justifies his attempt to conceal actions they consider to be
>his business and no one else's. The disingenuousness of the President's
>legalistic definition of sex is justificed by the equally transparent
>disingenuousness of Mr. Starr's tactic of using Mr. Clinton's relationship
>with Monica Lewinsky as a way of trapping him in a falsehood."
>
>Now Rep. Henry J. Hyde, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, says any efforts
>to expose members of Congress to the same scrutiny applied to Clinton's
>private life could lead to federal charges and imprisonment.
>
>This whole affair reminds one not of Watergate, but of McCarthyism.
>
>Brooke
|