I was one of the first to write about the Lewinsky matter days before the national media joined the feeding frenzy. I did so here in WorldNetDaily (Jan. 19, 1998) before the stuff hit the fan two days later. As this contemporary Shakespearean tragedy moves into Act Five, I was, as first, reluctant to join the growing throng of writers, but felt compelled to clarify a few elements which are significant. This is not the end, but the beginning: The 445-page Starr report which is now on the Internet is NOT (I say again ... NOT) the end of Judge Starr's report(s) to Congress. There is much more to follow. No later than Sept. 28, an additional 2,600 pages of material relating to perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power in just the Lewinsky imbroglio will be forthcoming. Additionally, there will be subsequent releases of material related to criminal allegations concerning Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, and (believe it or not) the Foster investigation. According to one report, Starr has already submitted at least one of those documents to the three-judge panel. Despairingly seeking plausible deniability: Democrats who have not already come out and criticized the bizarre litany of bad judgment and misogynist bad taste, are hiding. Clinton supporters are reported to be angry, distressed, annoyed, scared, or not available. Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala was eviscerated by her boss for her reluctance to accept his hypocritical "apology" to his Cabinet. Boston ultra-liberal, Doris Kerns Goodwin, wife of President Kennedy staffer Richard Goodwin, has called on members of the Clinton Cabinet to resign in protest. I spoke with an old colleague who had reported on Ted Kennedy's Chappaquidick disaster and still hangs around Harvard. He said, "Geoff, no one else will remember, but you have been a prophet ... stick a fork in Clinton ... he's done!" In 1974 as Hillary Clinton was working as an attorney on the Richard Nixon impeachment she noted, "Impeachment is the step in a remedial process ... [to correct] serious offenses [that] subvert [our government] and undermine the integrity of office." Please note her last phrase "and undermine the integrity of office." I had a very insightful caller to my radio program Friday who noted that the posting of the Starr report (even this abridged portion of things to follow) is real significant. Not only will it be seen by the president's American constituency ... it will also be read globally. Hey, it's the WORLD WIDE WEB campers. Distribution is not limited to charter members of the vast right wing conspiracy. The lurid, salacious, embarrassing details are being read in London, Paris, Zurich, Jerusalem, Moscow, Seoul, Jakarta, Bejing, Tripoli, Hong Kong, Kyoto and Hope. Twenty four years ago Hillary was so concerned about "the integrity of office." The president's lawyers have a tough row to hoe. First it can be argued that the excruciating detail of Phase One of the Starr report were made possible largely by the nitpicking legalized bovine excrement of David Kendall et al. The reason the President clings to his thinly veiled fiction of "no sexual relations" is a legal one. If he (as any reasonable person reading or hearing of his actions will know) concedes he did have sex with Monica Lewinsky ... he IS guilty of perjury. PERIOD. Close the door, and turn out the lights. If (a big, and terminal "if") he and his billable hour buds can maintain the fiction of "legally correct" but factual b.s. ... he can continue to work the clock. Time is (and always has been) his ally. However, his opponents are now fact, reason, common sense, and the founding documents to which he swore an oath. April 25, 1997, Congressman Bob Barr had published an open letter to the first lady in the Wall Street Journal. It was a brilliant letter, commending Mrs. Clinton for her scholarly work and analysis of the history of impeachment during her work on the Nixon impeachment. It is a must read. It was Hillary Clinton who, from that Barr letter, "noted then -- clearly in response to those who mistakenly claimed impeachment presupposes or requires a violation of criminal law -- that British history, to which our Founding Fathers turned for guidance, clearly envisaged impeachment as a tool to correct 'corruption in office' that 'alleged damage to the state,' and was 'not necessarily limited to common law or statutory crimes.'" Santayana ignored. The Wall Street Journal has noted that Clinton "... is guilty of essentially the same thing over which Mr. Nixon was hounded from office -- abusing his office to cover up criminal activity by himself and his accomplices, and misleading the public with a campaign of lies about it." That's it in a nutshell. Nixon was driven into infamy not by a botched burglary, but by his participation in the cover-up. Nixon's obstruction of justice, and abuse of power under the color of authority were his politically fatal, self-inflicted wounds. Clinton's lewd and salacious proclivities may be a tragic character flaw, but his participation in the cover-up, his lies, obstruction of justice and abuse of power under the color of authority are his politically fatal, self-inflicted wounds.