On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, kelley wrote:
> but the point is: no one would have subpoenaed lewinsky (or anyone
> else for related reasons) in the first place and clinton wouldn't have
> lied under oath.
Caldwell's analogy between sexual harassment laws and draconian drug laws is still invalid. Any law can be twisted and misused. Some are more liable to such twisting than they ought to be; they should then be changed. But Clinton's impeachment trial is not an example of the inherent weakness of the sexual harassment law. On the contrary, even when twisted, it took another law (perjury, itself twisted in this case, IMHO), and the breaking of a law (on the secrecy of grand jury testimony) and the unique and in retrospect unjustified suspending of a law (the Supreme Court's decision that subpoening Clinton "would not interfere with the normal function of his office" -- certainly not a ground that could be defended in retrospect), for there to be a baleful issue. That's not the sign of a law that's easily twisted. The sexual harassment law may well be such a law, but this doesn't provide any evidence for it.
With the drug laws, on other hand, no perversion is necessary for them to have a baleful issue. It's the normal effect of their straightforward application.
Michael
__________________________________________________________________________ Michael Pollak................New York City..............mpollak at panix.com