SUBJECT: Clinton

As the President is acquitted, doubts seem rampant about what all the fuss has been about. Most folks agree he’s a sleaze and a liar, but many don’t think he’s actually done anything to merit impeachment. In a totally futile gesture, I’d like to run through a brief summary of just one little charge (condensed from a piece in the 2/15 Weekly Standard).

Some say this is the LEAST persuasive element of the least persuasive charge.

1. Lewinski has always maintained her first sex with Clinton was on 11/15/95. This fits known facts and no one doubts it.

2. In his deposition in the Paula Jones case in 1/98, Clinton DENIED that he'd had a sexual affair with her beginning 11/95.

This deposition testimony came BEFORE the much argued legalistic definition of "sexual relations" was introduced.

3. In 8/98, Clinton testified to the Grand Jury that his relationship with Lewinsky came to include sex in *EARLY 1996.*

THIS WAS PERJURY BEFORE THE FEDERAL GRAND JURY.

He had to admit to sex at this point because of the blue dress. But he couldn't admit to sex starting in 11/95 because of his earlier sworn deposition. So he PERJURED himself in an attempt to avoid implicating himself in his prior perjury in the Jones deposition.

This was not a little lie to avoid embarrassment or spare the feelings of his family. The President knew he was in big trouble due to his lies in the Jones deposition, so he told more carefully crafted, pre-meditated lies to try to square his previous lies with the new evidence.

If you still think this is no big thing, try to think what would happen to YOU if you were caught lying to a Federal Grand Jury. What we are establishing is that there’s one law for you and me, and another for the high and mighty.

It’s a damn shame that the daily papers have never outlined the charges against Clinton with clarity and brevity as I have just done with this example.

Jerry,

Somewhat surprisingly, I believe I am in complete agreement with you on the subject of Clinton and impeachment.

I came to this conclusion via a rather circuitous chain of reasoning which I’d like to share. It started because I was feeling frustrated and annoyed at the fact that Congress seemed to have so few options in this matter. My thought was, in any system of judicial punishment, there ought to be a choice of punishments, so that the remedy could be proportionate to the crime. It appeared to me that censure was infeasible without the President’s willing cooperation. Instead, it seemed as though Congress had only one choice—to remove from office or not—and it seemed absurd that they should be limited to such a single "binary" choice.

So, I reasoned that either my reasoning was faulty, or the Framers had made a mistake. Given that the Framers have done so much else that turned out to be "the right thing" I decided to re-examine my assumptions.

Then it dawned on me: Impeachment and removal from office is not a _punishment_. Rather, punishment is a _side effect_ of impeachment, but that is not it’s true purpose, which is to neutralize a clear and present danger to the State.

Clinton may be a sleazebag and a scoundrel, but we’ve had scoundrels in office before and survived it. It’s true that he might be able to damage the country somewhat during his remaining term, but removing him from office will also cause some unpredictable amount of damage as well. Who can say which is the better course? I don’t believe that Clinton is that kind of "clear and present danger", although the allegations of bribery by the Chinese and the bombing of Iraq skirt the edge more than I’m comfortable with. In any case, we aren’t smart enough to know which course will be better for the country; That’s why we have laws and morals in the first place, to deal with those situations where our ability to predict the consequences of our actions is computationally inadequate. So the best solution is to try and follow the procedures that have been laid down, and not try to "bend" the law to suit our needs.

It’s said that in ancient Scandinavia, when the scholars wrote the history of the King’s reign, the last thing that they wrote was whether or not the harvests had been good. The fellow might have been a lousy King, a tyrant and a scoundrel, but in the end it didn’t matter, as long as "during his reign, the harvests were good." Well, the harvests have been good—we’re in better economic health than ever, although I wouldn’t place responsibility for that on Clinton or any other recent president.

I watched the special 2 hour show on ABC earlier tonight, and I now understand part of what made her so vulnerable. It hit me the minute I saw the home video of her in a high school play. She was fat.

Now this isn't going to make a lot of sense to a lot of you. It's going to sound like an excuse. Let me say up front that giving in to the temptation was inexcusable. Giving in to the temptation was wrong. But for some of us, the temptation can be stronger than for others.

It isn't fun to be fat. It's one of the last groups that it's safe to laugh at. I remember being in a theatre, watching a movie starring John Candy. (sp?) Most of the movie was about a vacation where he and his family ended up beating some rich snob in a sail boat race, but the first few minutes were him at work before that. Being lectured by his boss about his weight. Stuck in a chair never meant for him. Unable to get into his car because someone had parked too close. People calling out mocking remarks as he drove by. The theatre was filled with laughing. I sat there alone in the dark, tears streaming down my face. This wasn't a movie, it was my life- Each laugh carved a tiny sliver off of my heart.

See, you get used to the fat jokes. Maybe you laugh along with them, or even make them first to preempt possibly more hurtful ones. You know from bitter experience that if you object, you'll be shunned. You desperately want to belong, so you play along. But you never really get used to it. Instead, you get used to hurting, and after awhile you teach yourself to ignore the pain most of the time.

One thing I've never grown used to is the way that perfect strangers feel they have a right to walk up to you, discuss your dietary habits, and tell you about a fabulous diet. Sometimes they''ll try to commiserate. They Feel Your Pain. "Yeah, I could stand to lose 15 pounds myself." 15 pounds! Hah! Any fat person can drop that in a couple of weeks, and probably not even change wardrobes. Just reach into the closet and pull out the stuff you outgrew, it's in the back somewhere. The current clothes will work their way to the back of the closet, to be pulled out again when we have a fat relapse.

To be fat in Southern California, where the illusion is that any young person can be an extra on "Baywatch", is doubly cruel. Even the ugly people feel they have license to laugh at you.

Women who are fat, or who grew up fat and never got over the hurt and insecurity make easy prey. Despite any feelings of repugnance a man might feel, she can still fulfill his basic animal needs. Fat people of all genders lie to themselves about whether or not they are being hurt. If someone is willing to help prop up your self esteem, it must be hard to resist.

Before tonight, I disagreed with Bill Clinton's politics, and despised him as weak. Now I despise him as a cruel predator.