On Fri, 25 Sep 1998, Pat Cain wrote:
Folks -
Allegedly a Reuters story, from sources unknown (too many forwards to give proper credit).
pjc
===================================================== Flynt offers Starr job as porno aide
Pretty amusing. After Billy has resigned/been impeached he could star in porno movies that Flynt produces -- maybe use the proceeds to pay the taxpayer back for all the wasted time and money. The real problem with all this is that Star was forced to reveal exactly what acts took place because Clinton insisted on defining the minutia of what constituted "sexual relations" -- thus revealing whether he did or didn't conform to that definition was mandatory. The question of perjury balances on these facts. Any adult with half a brain knows that sexual relations are relations that are sexual in nature. A reasonable man/woman (especially wives of the adulterer in question) would consider oral sex sexual relations. But that is beside the point. Billy C is being hoist on his own petard. The fishing expedition discovery process allowed by sexual harrasment suits were an invention of NOW (and the club of socialist lawyers that Mr Clinton clearly is a member of.) By any stretch of the imagination Clinton has either perjured himself in his civil deposition (a felony offense), perjured himself before a federal grand jury (an even more serious felony offense), obstructed justice or all three. Of course the whole thing could have been avoided if Clinton had simply told the truth during the deposition and to the American people. (Actually it could have been avoided if Mr. Clinton had not made a habit of making his private life a matter of public record). Now Clinton has put either himself or the Republic in a very precarious situtation. (1) Either the perjury and obstruction of justice laws apply equally to everyone, or they apply to no one. If the judicial system fails to enforce these laws they set an example. Next time someone is under oath they can decide what they can and can't lie about. They can decide that "alone" means something other than what a reasonable man would agree with. They can decide to deceive the judge and jury if the prosecution is hostile (as if the prosecution is ever anything but). They can give testimony before a federal grand jury over a closed circuit video feed so that they are free to refuse to answer questions without chance of being held in contempt and jailed. (2) Admit that he lied under oath and open himself up to prosecution (and definite impeachment). (3) Resign and save (a) the Democratic Party (b) tax payers dollars (c) his own skin (4) Refuse (2) and (3) and trash the democratic party in the elections, waste huge amounts of taxpayer dollars and jeopardize the institution of the presidency and the legal system. (whats left of them ;-) And before all the dems on this list bitch that I'm just being partisan and just "let the man get on with his job" -- let me state that telling the people the truth *is* part of "his job". (and I'm neither a democrat or a republican -- not that there is much differnce anymore) We all laugh at and belittle politicians for lying to us when "their mouths are moving", but when they move those mouths under oath they are held to a high legal standard. Would you prefer this standard not apply when taking the oath of office? Would you countenance a politician who, appearing as a witness in a murder case, lied about who he had seen stabbing whom? Part of the oath of office swears out the fact that they will faithfully execute the laws of the land. Is this another sworn oath we could write off as the "trappings" of the republic? More importantly, as Noam Chomsky points out in "Manufacturing Consent", lying politicians are the modern democratic equivalent of feudal tyrants beating or executing citizens in more "uncivilized times". When the king decided to supress the power of the citizens he simply beat, killed or imprisoned them. When modern politicos want to relieve people of power they lie to them straightfaced, then do whatever they choose. The more slick they are, the less the people even know whats being done to them -- and the more dangerous they are. They become tools of force for those who wish to buy them. The velvet glove over the iron fist. In this Heinlein is dead right -- democracy is force. If anyone could watch the clinton testimony on video tape and not believe that he is a congenital liar then you are deluding yourself. And as for getting on with the business of government that most "liberals" hope for: education, welfare, more money for more people -- maybe they ought to start thinking more about what is being done *to* them than *for* them. "When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly.... [However, now] there's a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there's too much freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it." President Bill Clinton, MTV's "Enough is Enough" 3-22-94 (*gulp*, the Founders are rolling in their graves like blenders on frappe. The true colors of a "communitarian") In any case, since I'm neither Demoblican or RepublicRat I see the whole issue like a bystander at the crash of the Hindenberg. The first flames are breaking out on top and you know that the thing is made of hydrogen and flammable materials. The conflagration is not going to go out until the fuel is exausted. Between Lewinsky, TravelGate, FBIFileGate, DonationGate, Whitewater, Elections, Satellite News and the Internet thats a hell of a lot of fuel. Add Y2K to the fire and you just know the thing is going to burn to a cinder as it grounds out. "Oh, the humanity" Being of libertarian disposition I'm no fan of the nature of sexual harrasment proceedings, but if you are the chief executive of those laws then you must also live by them or risk undermining the very underpinnings of the legal system. If you want to be the banker in the game of Monopoly, don't complain that you don't like the rules when someone catches you cheating. (i know the original post was intended humoursly, but I'm so tired of the prevarication, deceit, etc I had to put a word or two in ;-) taking a deep breath, jim burnes "Libery cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have .. a desire to know; .. that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge. I mean of the characters and conduct of their rulers." -- John Adams A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law [1765]