Enough Already! It's Not About Sex!

Sun, 13 Sep 1998 12:29:14 EDT

In a message dated 98-09-13 09:42:04 EDT, you write:

<< There's a new criterion for presidents now: they can't screw around.
It's a lot like the new criterion for attorneys general that was
established a few years ago: you can't put anyone in that office who
forgot to pay social security for a maid. In both cases, hypocritical
American moralism is being exploited to political end. It's ugly.

Give me a freaking break. Presidents can screw around. They always have and
most likely always will. How can you have read and heard all you must have
read and heard about this case and come away thinking it's about Presidential

If Clinton were in the private sector he'd be toast, even if the sex was
consensual. He himself (as it's been written in this forum now at least 4
times) signed the sexual harassment law into being. The way some of you
interpret his actions, you'd think he was ENTRAPPED.

The President lied under oath in a case that happens to be about sex (sexual
harassment). If possible, imagine the case was about some other form of
malfeasance . . . like money. Clinton's treatment of other subordinates was
material testimony. If it was about misappropriation, we could ask him for
his tax records. It's all just testimony.

A very astute friend of mine says "Some people hear the word 'sex' and it's as
if their minds just automatically log off to reason." I'd have to agree.

The Clintonistas are doing a damn fine job of obscuring what should be the
obvious. I'm flat amazed that people of higher learning can be so easily
duped, distracted, or sidetracked away from the one issue re his testimony in
the Jones suit: Perjury.

Many of us voted for Clinton with the understanding that he was less than
faithful to his wife. We really didn't care. We voted him in twice. I
hardly think we're shocked now.

About the cigar and why it's relevant: Clinton was the one who made such an
issue over the legal meaning of the word sex. He went so far as to say Monica
was having sex while she was going down on him, but he wasn't. The legal
definition (per the Jones suit judge) was limited to the deposed stimulating
the other person.

Also, because Clinton said he "couldn't remember" the instances when he and
Monica were alone (as if they were few and far between) Starr was forced to
show the proponderance of evidence (sworn testimony), backed up by as many
witnesses (more sworn testimony) as possible.

Clinton himself forced this scenario by his legal maneuvering. Ask any