Greg
There was all this sex, but I kept wondering when they were
going to bring death into it. It's always sex and death.
> To me, the scariest aspect of the whole matter is Kenneth Starr's
> abuse of the Independant Counsel statutes, by repeated expansion of
> his original mandate, to the point that he now seems to be functioning
> effectively in a role that might best be dubbed Inquisitor General,
> empowered to use any and all means (Body wires! Secret tapes! Whole
> squads of FBI agents! --- and how the hell did the *FBI* get into this
> anyway?) to pursue any and all accusations of any kind of misconduct
> whatever against the President.
>
> And for what? By all reasonable accounts, while there is serious
> tabloid trash potential here, the case for criminal misconduct by the
> President (i.e., suborning perjury) seems pretty damn thin --- the
> media reports say that in several months of surreptitiously (and
> illegally) taping Monica Lewinsky, Linda Tripp didn't manage to get
> her to state, or even clearly imply, even once that either Clinton or
> his advisers had actually encouraged her to lie about anything. But
> the *possibility* exists. So loose the hounds!
>
> I'm not a big fan of Bill Clinton, both on political and personal
> grounds --- he doesn't keep his promises even where it *matters*
> (i.e., policy). I mean, what can you say about a Democratic president
> who has a noticably better public rapport with Newt the Nut than with
> his own party's Congressional leadership? But this Whitewater
> business has long ago transited into the realm of the delusional and
> absurd. Starr has been working on the damn thing for nearly as long
> as Clinton has been in office. Hey, buddy, if you haven't got an
> actionable court case yet, then you aren't going to. Give it up!
>
> And what sensible person, no matter how spotless their morals or
> public and private conduct, would want to serve in the executive
> branch when they might find themselves the subject of an inquiry by
> the Starr chamber, or one of its ilk (like the one which has indicted
> Henry Cisneros, not for failing to disclose the payments to his
> mistress, but for underestimating the dollar amount)? No one. We're
> chasing good people away from the White House, and leaving it to the
> scoundrels.
>
> rst
>