I am not a lawyer or a law professor at a prestigious university. I know little about jurisprudence or legal procedure. Therefore, could someone please answer a few questions for me?
Is the president of the United States a king? Is he above the law? Are we, the American taxpayers, not the employers of the president, as well as Congress and the Supreme Court?Does anyone, president or not, have the right to obstruct justice?
Is justice serviced by participating in a nationwide brow-beating campaign against a prosecutor while dismissing the charges against the defendant before they're given due investigation?
When a suspect acts guilty or suspicious, is it logical to ignore it or blame it on the investigator?
Legally speaking, what difference does it make if the president is a "sitting" president?
It seems reasonable to say that the majority of voters choose a man after their own hearts. Regardless of Clinton's innocence or guilt, what we now have is style over substance, image over ideal, and charisma over courage. Can it be true that the noblest country on the planet prefers a pro-choice, pot-smoking, draft-dodging, saxophone playing, charismatic Casanova over a crusty, old war hero with a gruff demeanor and more lofty goals than saving his own skin?
I believe that the majority pf people who complain about the treatment the president is receiving from Starr are sympathetic primarily because they see no wrong in him, or in themselves. They prefer substance-free flash over intelligence or courage. Much like those who protest the editing of "Titanic," they consider it blasphemy to remove an abomination, and count valor and courage for nothing. They consider a devout belief in Jesus Christ to be the insane prattle of a crackpot and worship sin and the world. They're actions say, "Why fear the wrath of a God in whom you don't believe? Why obey his laws?" This, I'm afraid, is the status quo, in general. I praise those who choose to rebel against it.
Matthew T. Witt
Salt Lake City