Posted on 03/06/2004 12:44:37 PM PST by ShelleyAa
Martha, Clinton and the media’s perception of rule of law
With Martha Stewart found guilty of obstructing justice and lying to government, are there many that have returned to former President Clinton’s legacy, asking how our nation, as well as his political party may have been different today, if consequences had followed his perjury, if media had reported facts rather than opinion?
Stewart found guilty on all counts, with a verdict that may send her to prison and destroy her business empire, leads the “little people” to wonder how so many pundits and law authority spokespersons were so wrong in the outcome of her trial. For months, we heard Martha’s crime in financial terms wasn't all that huge, she was a scapegoat, paying the price of fame and government witnesses against her, were slime balls themselves. Did the media’s defense of her sound familiar?
What is perjury against our nation’s law? Why should there be a consequence, regardless of position, wealth and degree, when it comes to crime?
Perjury means that one has knowingly made a false statement about material facts under oath. From researched understanding, one has knowledge that perjury is serious, left, destroys the fabric of our nation’s structure.
If Martha was found guilty and will have severe consequence, what can be said of Bill Clinton. Was it not also about perjury? Our media and law authority spokespersons appeared to focus on the Clinton because of sordid details, rather than center their attention on the seriousness of the crime.
Many may say he did have consequence, which is true. We acknowledge, after financially settling the Paula Jones suit, testimony limited trial, impeachment by House and Senate rejected both counts of impeachment, Judge Wright, who dismissed the Jones case, found the president in contempt for lying, when he denied the Lewinsky affair. Judge ordered payment of nearly $90,000 to Jones lawyers. Before Clinton left office, agreed to admit to giving false testimony, accept a five-year suspension of his law license and a $25,000 fine in return for independent counsel Robert W. Ray’s agreement to end the investigation, not prosecute him. A question, if he admitted to knowingly lied under oath, is that not perjury?
Yes, others will say this is old news and not relevant today. I submit it is more applicable today than ever before. Bill Bennett, during the time the impeachment trial was taking place, stated the following, “If President Clinton is allowed to serve out the remainder of his term, it will have profoundly negative cultural consequences. ... This corrupt and corrupting president must be repudiated.” Perhaps, if Democrats and the president had dealt with consequence, their increasingly insidious and deceitful behavior would not be as intense or audacious as it is today.
On the day President Clinton was impeached, Democrats rushed to the White House and stood on the lawn, proclaiming they were prepared to defend this man, they would help him avoid facing facts such as perjury, obstruction of justice, adultery, and outright lies to his family, his staff, the congress and the country. Clinton’s legacy, he pushed acceptance of the fires of his deceit, to our nation’s forefront.
Now, think on the statement that John F. Kerry made from the Senate's closed deliberations on the articles of impeachment against President Clinton. The excerpts senators were allowed to publish in the Congressional Record. “There is a simple question but a question of enormous consequence: Do we really want to remove a President of the United States because he tried to avoid discovery in a civil case of a private, consensual affair with a woman who was subsequently determined to be irrelevant to the case, which case itself was thrown out as wholly without merit under the law? That is the question,” Kerry stated on Friday, February 12, 1999. He voted against removal.
Citizens across this great nation believe aside from perjury and obstruction, Clinton degraded his office, and his party, as evidenced by the Democrat’s blatant dishonesty today. It appears to be all is fair in love and war for this deceitful bunch. Throw it up and see if it sticks. Many Democrats know that it will stay, with help from their media cohorts. Two good examples, Democrat’s unsubstantiated AWOL charge against President Bush that the media ran with for weeks, and thus far have not addressed Kerry’s Winter Soldier’s speech during his protest years. In addition, the lack of consideration of Clinton’s perjury as it applies to Martha; rather they wonder what negative impact this Martha’s case will have on President Bush.
The real story in the Stewart case, as well as Clintons, may well be, how the media sought to deceive us, and are continuing on today. With little accountability and increasing power to shape public opinion, those in control of media continue to push on to what is of importance. Sadly, for Martha Stewart they were not able to sway the public and law her way. Perhaps there is hope, even though powerful media will continue to try to damage American foundation through propaganda. In addition, Clinton’s legacy will never leave; Democrats will see to it that it remains intact. However, in some cases, equal justice under the law and respect for truth will prevail; if and only if, we the people demand the privileged that speak for us do so honestly and with consequence.
Commas are not this author's best friends.
Come now, everyone knows what his real legacy is. Just ask any teenager.
This is true. Deception is the essence of "Liberalism" (a misnomer, of course), and the media is dominated by "Liberals". Anything that promotes the "Liberal" jihad is justifiable. Certainly deception is no impediment.
Those who have supported the Democrat Party and "Liberal causes" would be wise to reflect on the things you have said--notably selective law enforcement, approval of privilege for the powerful, moral elasticity, and faulty ideas of justice, that characterize "Liberalism". Such injustices and moral failures could well be applied to them, as Martha seems to have discovered.
That would be the biggest bang for the buck.
Supposedly is the key word. This man was never the president of our country. EVERYTHING he did was all about himself.
Grade school kids are performing oral sex in the classroom - thanks to him.
I don't know about that. If Republicans continue controlling Congress and Republicans keep the White House this year and elect a new president in 2008, perhaps some DemocRATS might start thinking that Clinton wasn't so good for them after all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.