September 13, 1998 Daily Persistence: Web Journal of Ron Collins

this is my journal ... i write it as i go ... it has typos ... it's not perfect ... but then ... neither am i

Thoughts on Bill
September 13, 1998
4:30 a.m. - 11:48 a.m.

Forgive me my daliance. But I feel the need to write this, to put things as clearly as I can.

I'm not doing this to rant. I'm not doing this to be blustering or foolish or to appear to be a political dolt or whatever, despite the fact that I might come out looking that way. I've come to realize there is power in arranging my opinions on paper, though. Writing makes them firmer, clearer. That's why writing story critiques are so valuable--the mind divests itself of everything else in order to clearly write things down.

So this is just me, sorting through my thoughts.

Hopefully I'll learn something about myself in the process. Who knows, maybe when I'm done, I'll just tear it up or leave it on my hard drive for posterity to find some day.

We shall see.

So, if you're not interested in reading another diatribe about the Starr report then please go somewhere else now and come back tomorrow.

Diving right in, then ...

Here are some facts:

1) The president testified in a court of law where a sexual harrassment case that Paula Jones brought against him was being heard.

2) During this testimony, the president was asked if he had sexual relationships with various women, Monica Lewinsky being one of them.

3) The president applied a definition of sexual relationships to his actions and answered that no, he had not.

A quick opinion: There are a lot of people out there who are saying "This is about sex, and only sex." The report is certainly full of it. But the case in question at the time was a sexual harrassment suit: Paula Jones arguing that she had been denied job opportunities because she had refused the then-governor's request. So, in that sense, the case is about sex. But in my opinion it is about much, much more than that. It's about power. Individual power vs. organizational power. As are a majority of sexual harrassment cases.

Facts:

4) Ken Starr is the Whitewater prosecutor.

5) He expanded his investigation after asking for authority from, and getting the approval of, Janet Reno. If Janet Reno had felt this was an unjust investigation or a witch hunt, she could have stopped Ken Starr right there.

Here's an important fact to note:

6) The current report specifically states that it does not contain Whitewater evidence, and that this part (the Whitewater part) will be submitted at a later date (if evidence is found that warrants the report).

Opinion: It will not surprise me if this report has relevence to the Whitewater report.

Another Opinion: In order for me to think the president did not perjure himself in his Paula Jones testimony, I need to know exactly what he did, and what "rules" he was following in order to answer the way he did. I also need to know why the president felt it important to parse out the sexual nature of his relationship. Of course he lied in public to protect his family and his own hide in regard to Hillary. But he was not at that hearing to protect his family. He was at that hearing to defend himself against a civil suit. If he lied, I have to be able to tell myself that he did not lie to avoid the ramifications of the sexual harassment suit, and I'm not certain I can do that. I want to know if he's guilty of the legal definition of sexual harrassment.

Yet another opinion: The sexual harrassment laws (as I was taught them during the two day, full-Navy stand down right after the Tailhook scandal that, perhaps rightly, cost so many men their careers but that I'll note to the best of my rememberances did not cost any women their careers) are pretty heavily weighted toward the harrassed.

Just a Thought: I bet the two day stand down of the entire Navy in order to train us on sexual harassment laws cost more than $40M.

A final opinion: There is a difference in my mind between a lie told at the company water cooler and a lie told to a court of law.

Here are some more facts:

7) The president and Monica Lewinsky did indeed have a relationship of a form that a vast majority of America's citizens would think of as sexual. (I'm pretty sure I'm right about the peoples' assessment, so I'll count it as fact--but I'll point out that I've made an assumption that has a small degree of freedom here.)

8) The president has admitted to attempting to find Monica Lewinsky a job.

Here's something I'm pretty sure is a fact:

9) The president (then-governor) did not attempt to find Paula Jones a job.

A few facts, and opinions that border on facts.

[ FACTS NUMBERED, OPINIONS BULLETED ]

That the President and Monica Lewinsky had a long-running affair does not alone constitute a criminal matter.

It is a big deal in the political arena, though.

Most American people, including me, have a very hard time differentiating between the two.

In my opinion, the political problem is founded on the question of whether the president, as commander in chief, should be measured to military standards. In that environment, even "simple" adultry is a court martialable offense, better yet sexual harrassment. But this is not the germane issue in the Starr report because the report is pointed at the testimony the president gave in the Paula Jones case--a sexual harrassment and discrimination suit.

Despite the "everybody does it" argument, it does seem to be a fairly reasonable thing to debate impeachment based on the president and Monica Lewinsky's relationship in the political arena. But I'm trying to avoid the political area here, and I'll give anyone their opinion otherwise on this subject without argument.
10)The report suggests many more instances of the president lying under oath than merely those about his sexual relationships.
11) The report is certain to embarrass the president. If it does not, then I'm concerned for him.

The president appears to be using the fact that he's embarrassed of the report to mean that this is the only reason it could have been released.

The president's position is a political one.
12) His testimony was given in a civil case and a judicial environment.

Assuming the information presented in the Starr report is factual, the president has lied about the nature of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky in the Paula Jones case, even given his own definition of the act.

13) The Starr report needed to have its level of detailed description of the acts in order for me to make the prior statement.

Here are a few more facts:

14) Many people think the details of the President and Monica Lewinsky's relationship did not need to be in the report. But . . .

15) my main questions are focused on the Paula Jones deposition . . .

16) which is about sexual harrassment and withholding opportunities . . .

17) and in which the president testified by parsing out what sexual behavior is and is not.

18) Ken Starr did not release the report to the American people.

Here's another set of opinions:

Whether I find the report entertaining or not is not relevant to the situation.

I find people who say the report did not need the detail it has to have missed, or to be ignoring, a few important points.

I do not care that the President looked into the camera and lied to the American people. Well, yes, I do care, but at least I understand that dynamic. I don't take it personally and do not think he should be prosecuted legally for it. To me, this is a water cooler lie, something I'll think less of him for, but not something I think of as criminal in nature (wow, did that make sense?)

If the president is asking for my forgiveness for that act, I forgive him. Primarily because I feel that every statement the president makes in public is a political statement, made only to make people think he's a nice guy. I do not trust a man who apologizes because a poll tells him it might be a good idea. But in the same vein, I do not carry a grudge against him for pulling the lever that got him elected.

Just because I accept his apology does not mean I think the president should not be prosecuted if he broke the law.

I do care if the president lied in the Paula Jones deposition. And the reason I care is that his testimony brought the case to a halt. If he lied in the Paula Jones case, then the case should be reopened and the president held in contempt and prosecuted to whatever extent the law requires.

Just like I would be if I lied in a court of law.

So there it is. All of my thoughts, or at least most of them, arranged in some order that has begun to make sense to me.

Why do I feel anxious as I read them again?

I suppose I should state that I don't think of myself as being very political in nature, but if pressed I find myself falling closer to the republican side of many issues. Not that it should matter here, but of course it seems to.

I guess what concerns me at this point is that I've expected more out of us as the body of American people than what I've seen in the past two days. No. As I write that, I know that's what concerns me. I told Lisa yesterday that I thought this question was going to be eventually answered by the American people. And I'll stick to that.

I'm honestly suprised at the numbers I've seen, though.

And I'm worried about the number of people I've seen talking, buying into the various political lines without seeming to grasp some of the thoughts I've put into this note. Comments I've heard from other people make me feel either really smart or really dumb. They make me wonder whether I'm insane or not. The primary question we need to answer is whether the president lied under oath to protect himself from the ramifications of Paula Jones' sexual harrassment suit, or any other for that matter. I would like to see that answered for once and for all.

Doesn't this concern anyone else?

Am I just chasing a windmill?

Yet, I see the American people, and even worse the American press (could be the subject of an entire blurb by itself, I suppose) rushing to say he should or shouldn't be ousted, despite saying they haven't read the report.

I expect that type of comment out of politicians. But I didn't expect it out of the American people. I hoped we would be more deliberate, more contemplative. I hoped we would neither rush to judge, nor rush to support. I hoped we would look at the president like we would Joe down the street. That we would give him the benfit of the doubt, but judge him firmly where the law demands.

And hearing the types of things I'm hearing come out of our mouths makes my stomach churn.

"He's been a bad boy. He should come clean so we can forgive him."

Forgive him for what?

For lying into the camera? For having an affair and lying to his wife? For lying to his cabinet?

I don't care if we forgive him for those or not. Those are not immediately germane. And they're things that each of those individuals can answer for themselves. I want to know if he lied to the courts. And when some assinine "journalist" sticks a microphone in the faced of John Q. Public of Midland, America, I want that person to look directly into the camera and say either:

"I think the president lied in his Paula Jones testimony, and my opinion of what we should do is:" or

"I think the president told the truth in his Paula Jones testimony, and I think we should leave him alone."

Then I'll handle our decision to pardon the president or to prosecute him.

That's what I expected of us.

And I feel let down.

So I've spent the past five hours or so writing this thing, trying to come to grips with the situation, trying to understand why I've felt so bad about it. Five hours where I could have been writing fiction, where I should have been writing fiction.

And that is, perhaps, the greatest reason why my stomach is uneasy.

This stupid president, and the stupid press, and ... well, the entire stupid mess, has gotten me so messed up that I've put writing something like this at the top of my priorities.

And this fact, above all, makes me angry at myself. But that's okay. Really, it is. I know I'll forgive me.

For anyone who has read through this far, I apologize for dragging you through this mess. It may be scattershot, and it may not be what you wanted to hear. But it's real for me. And it's helped me understand a few things that I don't think I understood before.

Thanks so much for your time. Tomorrow, I'll be back to my normal writing-related topics, okay?

I promise.

MORE ENTRIES

"...what concerns me at this point is that I've expected more out of us as the body of American people than what I've seen in the past two days."

Ron Collins

BACK TO