JS>Do you remember when the Buddhist Temple fundraising issue and the Dial
JS>for Dollars expose hit and the Owl stated that there "was no controllin
JS>legal authority"? 
 
      Yes, and that "no controlling legal authority" just turned loose
an indictment against Mr. Wong who was in Clinton's inner circle.  That
Grand Jury and the investigation looking into the allegations of
criminal activity surrounding the administrations fund raising efforts
is still active and still ongoing.  I wouldn't count out Gore and
Clinton being drawn into it as well just yet.
JS>Wanna bet that the same inane defense will be used in this matter? You 
JS>know, it can't be perjury because what we lied about wasn't "material" 
JS>we can't therefore be guilty of suborning perjury because what Monica 
JS>Lewinsky lied about (perjured herself) wasn't material as well. 
JS>Consequently, I can't be guilty of tampering with a witness since what 
JS>would have testified to is no longer material. And lastly, since I can'
JS>guilty of all of the above, I certainly can't be guilty of obstruction 
JS>justice!
 
      These arguments sound good as sound bites during the Sunday
morning round of TV talk shows, reinforcing the loyalty
of those who already support Clinton, but I really don't think they'll
hold water before a jury.  These people are masters of the public
relations game and play public sentiment like a fiddle, but when the
time comes to defend their actions in court I think all these masterful
manipulations of public opinion will be worthless.
JS>Even a right leaning former U.S. Attorney, Joseph DeGenova, has agreed 
JS>this might be a viable defense. 
 
        We'll see.  These people are slick.  Man are they slick.
JS>Besides, how do you get rid of this administration? Resign? Don't hold 
JS>breath. Impeachment? What Henry Hyde says makes sense. If they don't ha
JS>the votes in the Senate to convict there is no reason to try. It'll be 
JS>labeled partisan politics. Indict? There is some debate as to whether o
JS>not this can be done legally. The "no controlling legal authority" 
JS>argument. 
JS>Scary isn't it?
 
    You bet it is, but with all this going on, somewhere, Judge Starr
is going to find that one piece of irrefutable evidence, if he doesn't
already have it, and the whole house of cards is going to come tumbling
down.  The entire administration and it's entire defense is built on
the foundation of doubt.  As long as doubt can be perpetuated in the
minds of the public, they can play the role of the persecuted
innocents, but when that doubt disappears they're done for. 
 
                                    /\/\ike
--- RBBSMail/386 v0.997
---------------