quote:But I hardly ever hear fans of President Clinton admit, yes, he committed perjury and it was pretty dang bad for him to have done. Almost invariably President Bush gets trotted out like a shield.
I think it's the other way around. Rather, Clinton's perjury gets trotted out as a shield to defend Bush from otherwise valid arguments for impeachment. When do you ever hear Democrats bring up Clinton's "perjury" on their own, except to contrast with the way Bush is essentially being granted a free pass?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, my position is that it's absolutely undeniable that President Clinton perjured himself, whereas as you say there is 'substantial evidence' that President Bush has broken other laws.
Under US law, an accused person is held innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Clinton has never been tried on the charge of perjury. If such a trial were to occur, it is far from evident that he would be found guilty.
To what ever extent it proven that Clinton perjured himself, it is because a special Ken Starr was given the authority to investigate the issue and spent untold effort uncovering the evidence even though there was no evidence of either his affair with Ms. Lewinsky or perjury before Starr started digging.
Bush has virtually confessed to violate NSIA and yet still no special prosecutor has been appointed to investigate his crimes. You will note, that is what I've called for.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: To what ever extent it proven that Clinton perjured himself, it is because a special Ken Starr was given the authority to investigate the issue and spent untold effort uncovering the evidence even though there was no evidence of either his affair with Ms. Lewinsky or perjury before Starr started digging.
This is flat out not true. Starr requested authority to investigate the issue after hearing tapes that contained specific evidence that Clinton had lied in his deposition and had encouraged Lewinsky to be evasive in her deposition.
The tapes were made by a woman who had been the subject of a concerted smear campaign that questioned her honesty when she reported seeing Katherine Wiley upset and disheveled shortly after leaving Clinton's office.
quote:The question he was asked belonged in family court.
Actually, the question was originally asked as part of proceedings in a sexual harassment suit, which was properly before the federal district court. Discovery during this sexual harassment suit properly included whether Clinton had had improper sexual relationships with female subordinates.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
At the time, I thought people were just being mean to Clinton- who cared who he slept with. But now that I am a bit older (I was a teenager then), I realize that these issus do matter. Now that I have a job, I understand the power differential between boss and employee much better (I have a boss and subordinates so I see both sides). I think sexual harrassment is an important issue and shouldn't be lightly dismissed. I also think that Bush's actions should be investigated thoroughly. I don't think the fact that bill did bad allows bush to. Nor does Bush's actions make bill's retroactively ok.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to my understanding, based on a Dateline NBC or 20/20 special (it's been 9 years or so, but I think it was 20/20), Lewinsky wrote letters to her best friend specifically saying that she became an intern specifically to have sex with Clinton. I mean, whatever. I doubt they'd make up such letters.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: To what ever extent it proven that Clinton perjured himself, it is because a special Ken Starr was given the authority to investigate the issue and spent untold effort uncovering the evidence even though there was no evidence of either his affair with Ms. Lewinsky or perjury before Starr started digging.
This is flat out not true. Starr requested authority to investigate the issue after hearing tapes that contained specific evidence that Clinton had lied in his deposition and had encouraged Lewinsky to be evasive in her deposition.
I guess whether or not my statement is true or untrue depends on how you interpret "before Ken Starr started digging". If you understand that phrase to mean before Ken Starr was appointed special prosecutor to investigate Clinton, as I intended, then I think even you will admit that there was no evidence of perjury at that point in time.
And my original point is still valid. There is far more evidence that Bush has violated the law than there was evidence Clinton had violated the law before a special prosecutor began investigating the crime. I can see no justification for those who supported Clinton's impeachment but do not even support an independent investigation of Bush's alleged crimes except partisan vendettas.
[ February 08, 2008, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
