"I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars. So they go to something that trips someone up because they said something in the first grand jury and then maybe they found new information or they forgot something and they tried to correct that in a second grand jury.
I think we should be very careful here, especially as we are dealing with something very public and people's lives in the public arena. I do not think we should prejudge. I think it is unfair to drag people through the newspapers week after week after week, and let's just see what the charges are. Let's tone down the rhetoric and let's make sure that if there are indictments that we don't prejudge."
Technicality? Wast of time? Oh! You mean like whether or not Clinton did it with his intern? No? You mean that was different? Well, you're right, it was. It really WAS a waste of time and money, since the only people effected were Clinton and his family. Starr was fishing for something, anything to get a charge on Clinton so the impeachment could proceed. He was obsessed with getting something on Clinton, even if it meant maneuvering him into committing a crime in the courtroom.
Fitzgerald is just doing his job, and letting the cards fall how they may. This case grew out of real, legitimate questions of foul play and high crimes and misdemeanors. It's a serious investigation into serious charges, and lying under oath about these events is even more serious and deserving of charge, since it impacts the course of justice about these events which, let's remember, led the U.S. into a war that didn't have to happen.