Professor Bainbridge...on law, politics, religion, culture & food

While under oath before the grand jury, Clinton could have refused to answer questions about Lewinski.  When asked about her, he could and should have replied, “Counsel, permit me to remind you that you were hired to investigate the Whitewater Real Estate Corporation and my dealings therein.  Explain to me what Ms. Lewinski has to do with that, and then I’ll answer your question.”

Of course, Clinton didn’t do that, he chose instead to answer the question untruthfully, which is why impeachment was warranted.  But the fact is that Kenneth Starr was hired to crucify Bill Clinton, and did a thorough job of it.

If we’re going to go over McCain and the impeachment, let’s go to the source.

The Senate faces an awful choice, to be sure. But, to my mind, it is a clear choice. I am persuaded that the President has violated his oath of office by committing perjury and by obstructing justice, and that by so doing he has forfeited his office.

I considered that question very carefully, and I arrived at an answer by reversing the proposition. If a clear majority of the American people were to demand the conviction of the President, should I vote for his conviction even if I believed the President to be innocent of the offenses he is charged with? Of course not. Neither, then, should I let public opinion restrain me from voting to convict if I determine the President is guilty.

Viz.:

All of my life, I have been instructed never to swear an oath to my country in vain. In my former profession, those who violated their sworn oath were punished severely and considered outcasts from our society. I do not hold the President to the same standard that I hold military officers to. I hold him to a higher standard. Although I may admit to failures in my private life, I have at all times, and to the best of my ability, kept faith with every oath I have ever sworn to this country. I have known some men who kept that faith at the cost of their lives.

I cannot--not in deference to public opinion, or for political considerations, or for the sake of comity and friendship--I cannot agree to expect less from the President.

Who here believes that the Paula Jones case itself was brought in pursuit of justice?  How about Ken Starr’s expanded investigation? 

Joel is correct.  Clinton should have refused to answer the question, or told the truth of the affair and played out the Jones case for better or worse.  But it is hard to imagine him being asked the question(s) without significant intervention by conservative activists, and that taints the whole case in the eyes of most Americans.  This is not due to the Left’s magic spin job.