Just who should Kenneth Starr work for next?

[Jim Burnes <jvb@ssds.com>]

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]