Letter: Clinton vs Starr

Martin Bradley
Wednesday 23 September 1998 23:02 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Sir: Robust US opinion poll support for President Clinton has been widely misinterpreted as the electorate displaying greater maturity of judgement than many in Congress and in the media. Have not able individuals been hounded from public office for behaviour with no apparent bearing upon that office?

If President Clinton were merely being exposed by the media as a sleazy philanderer, then majority US public opinion might have an arguable objection. However, Kenneth Starr's commendably exhaustive pursuit of the Lewinsky investigation, since Clinton had publicly and vehemently denied "sexual relations", is not essentially to do with sex, but has everything to do with the American Constitution and the rule of law.

To uphold those causes, any US president is solemnly required to make an inaugural pledge. Clearly, the rule of law would be undermined if subpoenaed witnesses were to receive signals that to lie under oath is less reprehensible in some cases than in others. Witnesses are sometimes required, for instance, to supply compromising information about themselves in order to corroborate a defendant's alibi.

MARTIN BRADLEY

Tamworth, Staffordshire

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in