Re: Clinton still doesnt get it

[Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>]

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