Which is really beside the point. Even if you feel that a question is unwarranted or out-of-bounds, once a judge rules that it’s OK, then you have to answer in a truthful manner. Your opinion that a question is irrelevant to the proceedings at hand do not give you license to lie under oath.
Zev Steinhardt
So I guess by this you mean that you are either incapable of answering a question honestly or are unwilling to realize that since the lawsuit was filed for sexual harassment, the question of Clinton’s womanizing and history of adultery was very relevant.
Either that or you just don’t know the answer and are completely devoid of any capability to think for yourself since you just gave me the stock Democrat response to the question.
Now, are you willing to answer the simple yes or no question or are you going to continue to be obtuse?
I vote obtuse, myself.
BTW, does all this Clinton/perjury/Paula Jones stuff mean that we’re done discussing the Twenty Second? 
Zev Steinhardt
could Bill be Vice President? Does the constitution prevent him from being elected Vice President? Elect a presidential candidate that is over 100 years old, and dies in office.
It could happen.
No.
At the end of the 12th Ammendment it states:
Since Bill Clinton is “constitutionally ineligible” to be the President, he is ineligible to be the VP as well.
Even if he were eligible to be the President, he’d wouldn’t become President. For example, suppose BC became the Speaker of the House (he’s second in line, right? If not, then substitute the office that is second in line) and the President and VP both die. BC wouldn’t become President because he is ineligible. Consider it as if he wasn’t a natural born citizen. He’d simply be skipped over for the office.
Zev Steinhardt
:smack: That should be “eligible to be the **Vice-**President…”
Zev Steinhardt
No, the point I’m making is that Ken Starr was tasked with investigating questionable real estate deals vis-a-vis Whitewater, period. Everything beyond that – up to and including baseless accusations of murder or harassment – were merely extraneous points tacked on by Clinton’s enemies because the Whitewater charges proved pointless. You choose to focus on the technical aspects of Clinton’s questioning; I’m pointing out the moral grounds for asking the questions in the first place, and their irrelevance to the original matter.
But then, the Republicans generally don’t care about messy things like that, IMO – as long as you can fabricate some excuse to nail Clinton (or invade Iraq), who cares if the original charges are bogus?
Good thing I’m an independent, then.
And once more you fail to answer the question. I was right. Obtuse it is.
The decision to appoint an independent counsel for any given investigation was made by the Justice Department under the (now-lapsed) independent counsel statute. Every expansion of Starr’s investigation was approved by both by Janet Reno and by a three-judge panel.
Do you think it would have been a better option to have appointed an entirely separate independent counsel for each investigation, complete with his own staff, office space, etc? If so, you’d better not bitch about the cost of the investigation, because that option would substantially increase those costs.
Which sounds great on paper, until you recall that the three-judge panel was hand-selected by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and staffed entirely by conservative partisan judges.
As for having everything go through Reno, it turns out Starr was concealing major parts of his investigation from her:
Isn’t it a bitch that your entire post doesn’t change the fact that Clinton comitted a crime?
All your post did was attempt to excuse it, and it did a piss poor job because nowhere did I see it admit that Clinton did something illegal. If you’re representative, it’s no wonder why people think Democrats are soft on crime- you can’t even recognize one when you see it.
So, is everyone satisfied that the presidential term limit has been completely discredited and there is no rational reason to support it?
No, I’m not, but it was at least a good discussion until it turned into the standard Clinton apologist thread.
**Whoopitie do. Unless you’re alleging that the judges in some way failed to follow the law or were otherwise derelict in their duty, this is just so much partisan sniping. **
It’s a real bitch when your own citation indicates that an investigation was appropriate:
IOW, the author apparently believes that the investigation into the Lewinksy affair was an appropriate task for an independent counsel. He just thinks Reno should have appointed someone other than Ken Starr.
The last I’ll say on this topic in this thread…
Sure, which is fine by me – because I believe that an impartial someone else would have recognized that Tripp’s allegations were baseless and raised merely because she wanted to tear down Clinton. An independent review of Tripp’s case would have dismissed it as bullstuff and let it fade away into obscurity.
But since Mr. Starr, the “independent” counsel, was (1) already biased against the President to begin with, and (2) actively colluding with Tripp’s legal team, he had every incentive to push her charges as far as he could to find something to use against Clinton.
Airman Doors
Is perjury a crime? The choices here are yes or no.
The answer is an obvious yes.
However, I would think that perjury might not be a high crime or misdemeanor, i.e. something that harms the nation, if it wasn’t about a matter of state. And “high crime or misdemeanor” IS the standard by which impeachement and removal is judged. Otherwise we’d get random loonballs trying to impeach a president for jaywalking or something.
I think Clinton was a far better president than the conservatives give him credit for. But I’m also quite convinced that he did indeed lie under oath. And I’m not real happy about his sexual conduct. The Monica Lewinsky thing is forgivable, though if I were Hillary I’d have divorced his unfaithful ass long ago.
But what nobody, Demo or Repub, seems to remember about Clinton is the matter of Juanita Broaddrick. There’s at least decently credible evidence that Clinton sexually assaulted her, if not outright rape.
Frankly I think the 'Pubbies look silly grilling Clinton about a completely consentual blowjob from Monica or possibly fishy property transactions at Whitewater when he may be a rapist. 
Uh, priorities??
Of course, my fellow Demos are very intentionally looking the other way on this issue, so I hate their stupid asses too.
>Sigh< But I’m digressing, and this is the wrong thread. I think I will just say that regardless of party affiliation, I pretty much loathe all politicians, and I think they should all be shot in the head.
And to bring it full circle, that’s just another good reason why we need to keep the 22nd Amendment! ;]
-Ben