I don't care if Clinton had an affair. I don't see the Moral Outrage as
being an important issue. What is important (legally) is if he tampered
with a witness to lie about it. That would be criminal, etc.
But if this is the case, and Clinton is guilty, what does this mean? He
is guilty of tampering with the investigation of allegations. It
totally ignores the original allegations or whether an original crime
was committed.
I would hate to see a President brought down as a result of his reaction
to an investigation, and not due to guilt involving the original
allegations that prompted the investigation. This implies that a person
can be investigated and eventually found guilty because of the
investigation without any crime prior to the investigation being
required. This vaguely reminds me of entrapment, whereby the person's
reaction to the police investigation is deemed criminal, and the person
is charged based on this and not based on any activity occurring prior
to the investigation.
-- Harvey Newstrom <mailto:harv@gate.net> "F746 7A20 EB7D 27BA 80A5 4473 D8E1 6A54 1EB0 56F7"@<ldap://certserver.pgp.com>