Mac Norton writes:
Well, I've been working for a couple of days and spent the weekend before that with The Report. I read all of it, including the footnotes, every damn one of them, and they're where all the good stuff is, btw. Given that weekend study, it's apparent to me, after reviewing several days of posts on this topic on this list, that most of you people can't or don't read or have the attention spans of gnats.
The perjury case has some serious reasonable doubt problems, the abuse of power case is thin, thin, and the executive privilege stuff is there as sheer trade goods to give Congress something to throw out. In legal parlance, it wouldn't pass Rule 11. And I don't know who is giving you legal advice, but there's no sexual harrassment count in the thing. Read it, if you can. Peferably after your medication.
Mac, Rather than merely writing to say what bozos all the list members are (unfairly stereotyping us all - even those not from AOL :-), why don't you give us the benefit of a little of your expertise? Why do you believe the perjury case has `reasonable doubt' problems? {Were I on a jury and if convinced that matters are as Starr presents them, I would have no problem deciding that Clinton lied in the deposition at least, where the term `sexual relations' seems to have been carefully and explicitly defined - even assuming that he /shouldn't/ be convicted on what seems a clear intent to deceive the court and later the grand jury on multiple points.} And the abuse of power case seems thin even to a non-lawyer. But where does the `executive privilege stuff' come in? I don't see that Starr listed that among his possible grounds for impeachment. And what about obstruction of justice? Do you see any merit to those charges? Inquiring minds want to know. - Frondeur