Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.

Sexual harrassment isn't the crime, though

Author:jcookgraybill@yahoo.com
Posted:12/15/1998; 1:45:36 PM
Topic:DaveNet comments
Msg #:1266 (In response to 1213)
Prev/Next:1265 / 1267

It's true that sexual harrassment is a serious crime, Dave, but isn't that beside the point? I mean, the crime here is that when Bill Clinton was asked under oath if he had sex with Monica Lewinsky, he knowingly lied. And that he asked Monica Lewinsky to give back the t-shirt and teddy bear he'd given her in order to cover up that crime. But the relationship itself was consensual -- there's never been any implication that it was coerced or otherwise.

I'll agree with this statement that you made: "It's easy to get wound up and confused in the Clinton quagmire." What's silly about this all is that in order to make impeachment or resignation seem morally defensible, we have to get away from the actual crime and start talking about crimes he didn't commit (Paula Jones), crimes he's been absolved of (Whitewater) and things that aren't actually criminal (lying to his wife, lying to the media, not being forthcoming with self-incriminating evidence.) Sure, we don't like that politicians are dishonest, and we don't like infidelity or workplace romances, especially with "the boss."

But if it's honesty we want, we need to start by dealing honestly with each other. I think you know -- I HOPE you know -- that he's not being impeached for sexual harrassment. And that he's not being impeached for being dishonest during a press conference. You may not like his personality, but that's what we have elections for, not impeachments.

I don't want the President to be above the law, but that means he has to get fair treatment. That means a trial for his crimes, and a trial has all of the things that we haven't seen yet, namely: specific charges, witnesses, an impartial judge, a punishment equal to the crime, and equal time for prosecution and defense. And, most importantly, the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove the crime, which means proving that specific sexual contact occurred (remembering that he-said, she-said can't constitute a perjury charge), that Clinton understood the question correctly, that he recalled specific contact and knowingly answered falsly.

Clearly this will never happen. And that's why we need to divert attention away from the issue onto ideals like integrity, honesty and fidelity -- ideals that very few of us would be able to measure up to ourselves. Congress is full of smart people, and there are smart people taking place in this conversation, so all of us should know what the charges are here -- we've been hearing them for almost a year. If you want to talk about dishonesty, cynicism and trustworthiness, why don't you take a look at the efforts to distract people from the real issue, to make this into a referendum on Bill Clinton as a person, or to attack people who are trying to address the actual issue as "choosing lies."



This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:46:36 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.