Apparently, Starr has the need to prove (the evidence alluded to above) Lewinsky did purchase books from either Kramerbook and Afterwords or Barnes and Noble. The judge also believes that proof of the purchases can supply information to help the government determine whether illegal conduct occurred.

Keep in mind - President Clinton had testified in the Jones' case that Lewinsky had given him a "book or two." He did so while under oath.

The books being checked for are Nicholson Baker's Vox and Walt Whitman's poem, Leaves of Grass. Vox is a steamy novel about phone sex while Whitman's poem is one of the classics studied in secondary literature classes.

As I read different sources, a few thoughts entered my mind, the first being since when it is illegal to purchase books and give them to another person, even if the other person happens to be the President?

Then, how does this prove a sexual relationship? Have any of you given or received books without any having had any form of sexual relationship with the other person? Or is giving a book a form of sexual foreplay>

How about the judge's ruling concerning the feasibility of the book store records proving Mr. Clinton has lied? Mr. Clinton stated Lewinsky had given him a book or two under oath.

Is it necessary for Starr to prove Mr. Clinton’s admission as factual and then use this as evidence that Mr. Clinton lied under oath concerning his alleged asking of Lewinsky to lie about their alleged affair? I.e., does one relate to the other?

In order to more effectively (assumed but not yet in evidence) conduct his investigation, Starr added on 10 more attorneys to the 17 he already had. Also, he had to rent an additional over 7,000 square feet of Washington floor space. Since that time, he has obtained Lewinsky’s finger prints and sample of her hand-writing along with the above.

Granted, this is only an additional cost to the taxpayers of possibly $2,000,000 per year which, in Washington standards, is very low cost. Washington politicians can lose that much just fooling around during the day with most of them not worrying about it.

But, is the money worth finding the "truth" about facts already in evidence, that Lewinsky did give Mr. Clinton a couple of books, a fact established under oath? What more could book store records add to this?

And, just for a moment, Ladies and Gentlemen, think about this. Are these actions more indicative of a struggle to keep the investigation alive for political purposes or is it a concerted effort by an American citizen to dig up the truth the American public deserves?