No smoking gun!!!

Gregory Alan Bolcer (gbolcer@gambetta.ICS.uci.edu)
Mon, 21 Sep 1998 10:48:21 -0700

I disagree. I think it's a catch-22. Lewinsky, Willey, and Jones
statements/responses are all subject to interpretation.
He interpreted each using a different standard, but when you apply
the standard to the others, it falls apart. Perjury? I think you can grant
him the hair splitting argument. Abuse of power? disgusting
and debatable. Subornation of perjury? Still debatable. What
they have, though, is a lock-stock-and-barrel case of obstruction of justice.
He can't even keep his answers internally consistent within his
own testimony.

So, I think that Jeff's assessment that Perjury is the no-smoking
gun-allowed is way off. I think the obstruction charge is the most
serious of the multi-umvarite of charges.

Greg