Sorry, let me elaborate a little. Privacy is a fuzzy legal issue, but
there is ample precedent to expect that one's sexual activities ---
within legal bounds --- are a private matter. The problem is that in
the Jones case, the fact-finding went way beyond the pale, spurred on by
the titillating prospect of rooting around in our Chief Executives
recreational tendencies; if the participants in the trial had simply
asked Bill and Monica whether there were any activities that occurred
which would construe sexual harrassment, that would be fine. They
didn't. They stepped way over the line and asked questions about things
that were in fact legal activities and indeed not even material to the
case at hand. In doing so, they set a precedent that *anything* can be
asked in a civil trial, and the defendant has no choice but to answer.
(Bill coudn't plead the fifth, as there is no "incrimination" when there
is no crime.) In effect, they set a precedent which partially unravels
the notion of "innocent until proven guilty." By de facto waving a
defendant's right to privacy on matters which are legal and have no
material bearing on the case in point, they've already weakened the
whole notion of "fair trial."
I'm no Clinton fan, but nobody should be subjected to what he's been put
through. Who the hell is going to want the damn office if the news
media, the politicos, and everyone else essentially have carte blanche
to completely crawl up the president's ass and stay there for term?
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. ;-)