***************** PART ONE OF THREE ******************
2. Clinton lied about the consensual affair to a grand jury and to the Paula Jones court.
3. Clinton obstructed justice by trying to influence witnesses, or by trying to get others to influence witnesses concerning his consensual affair.
Recently that point was reaffirmed at Ruby Ridge, where Mr Weaver killed a U.S. Marshal who was trying to arrest him. The jury determined that the Marshal fired the first shot and Mr. Weaver was entitled to shoot back to protect himself as well as to protect himself from unlawful arrest.
The principle is long standing. It was first established in 1709 in The Queen v Tooley case. In the United States it became the established rule in Bad Elk v United States. In the Bad Elk case the Supreme Court held that, "the defendant, whose murder conviction was reversed, had the right to use such force as was absolutely necessary to resist an attempted illegal arrest."
Once the government breaks the rules and conducts a mixed war on one or more citizens without probable cause, it loses its right to expect the citizens to continue to obey the government's wishes. The citizen(s) are entitled, in fact have a duty, to do whatever is necessary to control the government and force the government to obey the law. The U.S. Declaration of Independence elaborates quite thoroughly about that.
In Clinton's case, EVERYONE agrees that he initially did not break the law. However improper his actions were with Monica Lewinsky, the acts were consensual and there was no federal law specifically prohibiting it. When Ken Starr opened what eventually was to become known as the Starr Chamber (a play on the original English Star-chamber which accused, judged, and executed in the name of expediency) he had no probable cause to investigate that incident, and Ken Starr has so admitted that.
Clinton, in that particular case, was (and is) entitled to do any reasonable act of force necessary to preserve his privacy, liberty, and reputation. "Reasonable" means that he cannot act or use force beyond what is necessary to preserve his rights, to preserve the status quo, to prevent unlawful jurisdiction.
Clinton took an oath to tell the truth. It is important to realize that the oath was not voluntary. It was forced out of Clinton under threat of contempt of court (force) if he did not testify. Since the government had no probable cause, since the consensual acts were legal, there was no governmental authority to question Clinton about the act. He is, under the nearly three-century-old legal theory of reasonable resistance to loss of rights, entitled to take whatever actions necessary to preserve those rights.
The grand jury to which Clinton is accused of lying was a special grand jury. It was not a fully empowered independent grand jury of 25. Instead, it was a lesser grand jury, statutorily defined, consisting of fewer than 25 members, paid by the federal government, serving as a dependent extension of the government. Because the grand jury was a dependent extension of the government's $40,000,000 mixed war against Clinton, and because it was being influenced by the Starr team (also part of the government), and because there was no probable cause, Clinton still had no obligation to yield to their demands. Nor did he have any obligation to tell the truth, for lying is an acceptable thing to do when defending rights against a mixed war initiated by the government.
The Paula Jones court has a similar problem. There are two reasons why Clinton's alleged actions are not legally significant.
2. The Paula Jones attorneys, as investigation is beginning to reveal, had a close connection and ongoing influence from Ken Starr, the government agent. Because of their cooperation with the government in the attack on Clinton, the Paula Jones case converted from a simple civil action to that of another arm of government participating in the mixed war. The Paula Jones attorneys, acting in their additional role as government agents (whether or not paid by the government) authorizes Clinton to do whatever is necessary to protect his liberty, privacy, and reputation.
If we accept the idea that "The end justifies the means," then we will cease to be a nation of laws and become a nation of opportunistic power. If we allow the government to ignore the requirement that it have probable cause, then anyone can be convicted of anything. Just find something he did that's embarrasing though legal, attack him with such overwhelming power that he cannot make well thought choices of action (he'll make a mistake somehow), and he can be convicted. If the government can disregard the probable cause requirement, then the target can be convicted of murder despite his claim of self defense. Saying it another way, if the government can ignore the fact that Clinton's consensual acts with Monica Lewinsky were legal, then the government can convict Clinton for obstruction of justice, despite his claim that he is entitled to self defend his privacy, liberty, and reputation.
If Clinton is convicted by the Senate, we will have established the precedent that the government needs no probable cause to investigate anyone. Is that what we want?
The nearly three-century-old principle that one may stand his ground when a limited government breaks loose from the restraints of law and mounts an unprovoked attacked will be certainly trashed. Is that what we want?
Is it now OK for the government to conduct a $40,000,000 mixed war against a citizen because the citizen's conduct, though legal, is immoral in the eyes of the government? Are we ready for the morality police?
Many claim that Clinton is a bad guy--bad for the country, bad for the children, bad for the Republicans. It seems to me that we can hold the government to a higher standard. If Clinton has done something illegal, he should be prosecuted for that act. Clinton should not be prosecuted for resisting an investigation of a legal act just because he is disliked for something else.
Just because a bunch of politicians are loosely calling President Clinton a perjurer, it isn't necessarily so--even Ken Starr admitted that there was no genuine perjury, just a lot of lying. Do not haste to grant the government authority to police morality. They do badly enough just "enforcing" the law. Do not limit the right to protect oneself from unlawful intrusion from the government. We have little enough power to protect ourselves from our present government. The founding fathers and the courts have provided us the means to preserve our liberty, privacy, and good name. We must demand that the government respect that by following good procedure and not let it profit by success when it skips over essential steps in prosecutorial procedure.
 The Queen v Tooley (1709) 2 Ld Raym 1296, 92 Eng Reprint 349
 Bad Elk v United States (1900) 177 US 529, 44 L Ed 874, 20 S Ct 729.
 Our Western civilization is based in part on the Greek civilization. The Greek Gods required that earthly humans must be honorable, honest, etc. But they made one exception to that rule. In matters of love, men and women were allowed to deceive without restriction. Although we all want integrity in our daily affairs, even the Greek Gods acknowledged, where humans were concerned, that there was a practical limit to enforcing that standard, and they made a special exemption. Sorry. That's part of Western Tradition.
It destroys our system when you prosecute someone for doing something for which there was no law prohibiting it. It destroys our system when you prosecute someone for properly resisting such illegal prosecutions.
The legal meaning of the word "justice" essentially is "fair procedure." To obstruct justice is to obstruct fair procedure. When the government accuses you when no crime has been committed (such as a consensual affair), you are entitled to do whatever you reasonably can to obstruct unfair procedure, aka illegal procedure.
Is our system so intellectually impoverished that we cannot differentiate between self defense against the government and obstruction of justice?
Of course, I understand the problem with trying to speak precise English. Calling things by their right names is a dangerous thing to do. Savile wrote, "A Man that should call every thing by its right Name, would hardly pass the Streets without being knocked down as a common enemy." "The Complete Works of George Savile, First Marquess of Halifax," 1912, 246.
Our system, unlike other systems, says the government cannot just do anything it wants to any person. Our system says that the government has limits, and when it goes beyond those limits it is the responsibility of the People to correct it. Because the U.S.A. is a Republic and not a democracy, it is all the more reason that the People should correct it. In fact, I have no doubt that you, just as I, have often said the Pledge of Allegiance in which you pledged your "allegiance to the Republic." [By the way, if you're not familiar with the difference between a Republic and a democracy, check out the web site at http://www.1215.org.lawnotes/repvsdem.htm]
Unlike other countries, the U.S.A. is a government with limited powers. It cannot make up ex post facto laws; it cannot do bills of attainder (see U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 3). In fact, it cannot do anything unless it has prior permission from the People (see U.S. Constitution, Amendment X, Reservation of Powers).
You can not trust your government to make up laws "on the fly," without public legislative debate. Many foreign countries operate that way: it's not a politically pleasant experience. Let's keep the system clean. Do direct prosecutions, not indirect ones.
Why are the Republicans and naturally conservative prosecutors not prosecuting Clinton for what are far more serious accusations? I suspect the answer is this: The Republicans believe that Clinton will adopt a scorched earth policy if they accuse him. The Republicans are probably equally guilty of accepting illegal campaign donations from the Chinese (well-heeled, smart donors will donate to both parties so they can get favors from whoever wins). The Republicans are probably equally guilty of treasonous acts, bribes, and obstruction of justice.
If you want a real experience, call up your representative and try to discuss why proposed legislation is not considered for its constitutionality. You will find that the U.S. Constitution has no place in their thoughts except when they are telling you how loyal they are. The idea that legislation should be prechecked for constitutionality has been considered and rejected by Congress.
Every representative and senator has a $200+ book called, "The Constitution of the United States of America, Analysis and Interpretation." You can see its contents for free at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/index.html. It is prepared by the Congressional Research Service. The book is published by the Library of Congress for the Congress. The book pulls no punches. In it you can find the differences between the rights of People and the Civil Rights of citizens (1992 Edition, Footnote 37, Page 962 [http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf/con011.pdf]; or 2002 Edition, Footnote 37, Page 1006, [http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/018.pdf]); or see summary at http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/pvcright.htm. I know of no congressman who has looked at its contents. In fact, it is not unusual for Congress to pass bills that are duplicated so that if a particular code is declared unconstitutional its duplicate sister code is immediately invoked for enforcement. This is particularly true for anti-gun and anti-drug legislation.