1. it's because i'm the father of ken starr's love child 2. it is absolutely about perjury and obstruction of justice to me.
I take it the first answer is in jest. The second answer I can accept, though I can't help but think you have either willfully or unconsciously put on blinders in this case.
unfortunately, it's all too true. actually..i don't care about ken starr one way or the other. i do think they were way too political in their approach, no doubt. it did turn into a witch hunt. but that doesn't, in my mind, excuse what Clinton did. i am about as middle of the road on Clinton as anyone could possibly be. i believe he's a good man with a good heart who genuinely cares for people and has an amazing ability to relate to other people and give them hope. i also believe he is the consumate politician...and that he has trouble telling the truth. i believe his reputation as a womanizer is well-earned. i don't have political blinders on at all. particularly not at this point. i'm not comfortable with giving a president a pass on perjury or obstruction. the fact that it was about sex in the context of a sexual harassment suit is of little issue to me. though, i must say, i would prefer presidents not have sex (defined however you wish) with white house interns. but i realize i'm old-fashioned that way.
whether its interns or gay male hookers, presidents should not be having sex w/ anyone in the white house. call me old fashioned, but they probably shouldn't even be having sex with their wives in the white house.
Where or where is KingCheetah's "unlikely" picture? Max: I understand your point, and the contempt you have (as a lawyer) for those who perjure. I respect that. I just diagree that it was impeachable, particularly given the circumstances rimrocker pointed out.
in their oval orifice, yes in the oval office, no clinton should not have been messing w/ interns in our white house and bush needs to keep the gay male hookers out of our white house.
I can agree with you analysis but to tie this back to the Libby case the same thing could be said for Libby. In regard to a perjury trap both Clinton and Libby had the option to cooperate and neither told the truth.
I find it interesting that the US is one of a very few countries that give a crap that their leaders have affairs. I find it even more interesting that some countries would find it strange if their leaders weren't able to get laid. You are the most powerful person in the world and you can't get laid, there is something seriously screwed up.
dont think its the same, clinton lied because it was embarassing libby lied because it was treasonous
They lied for different reasons but lying under oath is still perjury and they had a choice to not to.
Well as long as we don't know if perjury is a big whup-d-do in certain situations and whether presidents should commit adultery and what effect a man's ethics has on his leadership... we will keep blindly electing whoever they tell us to elect- be it donkey or elephant. Can't we see that people in general no longer have the ethics or moral character to expect anything more from their leadership. I want a leader who is a true example of what America is supposed to stand for and I can tell first and second graders this is the kind of PERSON you should grow up to be. If to be perfectly honest I have to tell school children about certain sex acts in the white house, gargabe profanity spoken off the record, torture stories, perjury, grand jury investigations, political retribution, constitutional violations, broken promises and gay hookers stories and then attribute it to the President of the United States- then we don't have a real leader in the Oval office. Politics is becoming a joke- that's really sad. And this would have been the least of our expectations for the first 150 yrs of this nation.
Our Presidents and other political leaders for pretty much our whole history have had moral issues. Infedility in the Whitehouse wasn't invented by Clinton. The difference is that the press generally left such things alone. Anyway while it is unfortunate that we find out that our political leaders are human at the same time I take some comfort from the fact that they are human.
What was the consequence of the perjury though? He lied about an affair, what was he being questioned about at the time and what difference would telling the truth have made? What relevence did that question have to the case?
Do you think that it makes a difference what he perjured himself about? From my perspective I view it as a technical crime but not one that upsets me on an ethical level because when he perjured himself, it was in relation to a question that wasn't relevant and appropriate. When people ask questions that are none of their business, I have a hard time faulting someone for lying instead of confronting the questioner. It's kind of the weak way out, but personally it doesn't offend me in the least. It's been a while so correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think BJ's were within the scope of the special prosecutor. I view Clinton’s perjury as a crime but more a technical crime like a speeding ticket, not something that outrages me. Do you see it differently? In this instance, it is my understanding that they didn't subpoena Dick Cheney because they thought he simply wouldn't show up. Is that what Clinton should have done? Again if you see it differently, I would be interested to know why.
Wait..the original lie was in a deposition when he was sued by Paula Jones for sexual harassment. He denied ever having sex with Lewinsky in that deposition. It is absolutely the business of a lawyer representing a plaintiff in a sexual harassment case to ask questions about the defendant's sexual relations with underlings.
Ok. Like I said it's been awhile and I don't exactly think about it all that often. You are correct and I'm wrong.
Max, I can't believe this crap is being bandied about again, but the man was set up. As for having "sex," whether a blow job counts is certainly up for grabs, IMO. Personally, I like what my mother said at the time, someone who was born in the early '20's. She said that it was perfectly understandable to her why Clinton didn't tell the truth. "No gentleman would ever expose a woman to an affront like this in public. Of course a gentleman would lie about relations with a woman, in order to protect her reputation." She didn't have the slightest problem with Clinton's behavior on the stand. She had problems with Clinton stepping out on his wife, but not with that. And a married man stepping on his wife may be contemptible, but it's not illegal. D&D. Reruns.
