They didn’t put in it that you can lie under oath. If he didn’t want to answer, he didn’t have to. But he did answer.
He wasn’t asked whether he committed a crime. Perhaps if you would actually read the judge’s ruling to which I linked previously. Twice.
Right, and the War in Iraq is about our freedom.
No, they put in that you don’t have to incriminate yourself.
And defendants are allowed to lie under oath, otherwise every time a guilty verdict was returned they’d add perjury on top of it.
To do otherwise is to ask people to incriminate themselves.
“Did you kill him.”
“No.”
“Ah-hah! Perjury and premeditated murder!”
One, I don’t appreciate your accusation that I didn’t read your cite.
Two, you’re not being totally truthful, from your cite
Further, you are innacurate. As they were asking about his sexual relations with Lewinsky, they were indeed asking if he had commited a crime.
Places where oral sex is illegal: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Georgia, North and South Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia and Washington D.C.
Addendum: they are ‘allowed’ to lie in at least as far as they can deny commiting a crime.
With friends like you, who needs enemies?
A man may refuse to answer a question whose answer might incriminate him, but he may not lie under oath under any circumstance. Sometimes, convicted criminals are charged with perjury. But usually, it is more trouble to the prosecutors (and the courts) than it’s worth.
Honestly, though, what I don’t understand is why you leftists are so maddeningly obsessed with Clinton and his blowjob. One can scarcely criticize anything about the man but what some Democrat screams, “It’s the blowjob, stupid!”. Clinton himself has admitted his lie and his indiscretion, has accepted the consequences, and now makes no excuse for it. You’re not making him look better by offering flimsy excuses on his behalf. You are probably embarassing him. Why don’t you just let it rest?
Why? If it was as cut and dry as you make it out to be there’d be no trouble at all. “He said he didn’t do it, but he was convicted. Ergo, he perjured himself.”
Something tells me that Clinton is blisfully unaware of the words of Liberal and FinnAgain. Just a hunch.
Same reason they dismiss so many cases without hearing them. There are only so many judges and a shitload of cases. The dockets are packed to the brim.
Well, yes, but these inane attacks and defenses of him are commonplace, and he knows about them. Even the First Bitch suspected a vast rightwing conspiracy. I frankly feel sorry for him. He is a brilliant man, but suffers the Lyndon Johnson curse of high-mindedness combined with turning everything he touches into shit.
We won’t let it rest because the Pubbies would dearly love to have some shred of cover, however flimsy and insubstantial, for the pettiness and ugliness of the blowjob impeachment. They would really like us to believe it was all a matter of some abstract judicial process so that they won’t be seen as the scummy, dignity-free assholes they are.
Won’t happen. Will never happen. They earned their reputations fair and square, because it is and always was about the blowjob. It was a blowjob impeachment. You can argue all you want, but you don’t have a leg to stand on, or a shred of dignity, because you’re trying to defend the indefensible. Lying about it won’t change the fact that it was all about the blowjobs, and that Republicans leaders of the time, at heart, were all about blowjobs. We Democrats, on the other hand, go after Presidents for serious shit, like starting wars under false pretenses.
But just as you say that the war is all about false pretenses, so do the Republicans say that the impeachment was all about lying under oath and obstruction of justice. It’s funny to watch really. You’re both writing history on the fly, expecting your own spin to survive. Eventually, some dispassionate Barbara Mikkelson of the future will put it all straight. I honestly don’t see any substantive difference between the two of you. The rightists can’t stand someone having a good time, and the leftists can’t stand someone having a spare dime. It’s exasperating, really.
You want civility in political discourse? You may have it elsewhere, but you can’t have it in THIS thread, because its an obvious ploy, an exact analog to the behavior of all those movie villains who spray machine gun fire at their opponents and then toss down their weapons and throw up their hands at the moment that their opponents fire back, crying, “Can we have some peace? Peace!”
Where was civility during the Clinton impeachment? Where was civility when the nightly news was all about Monica Lewinsky’s lips sliding up and down Bill Clinton’s cock? Where was civility when every radio show and TV editorial was about Monica Lewinsky’s vaginal humidor trick? Where was civility when the Presidential cum stains on Monica Lewinsky’s dress were all over the airwaves? Where was civility when Ken Starr’s “investigation” read like a bad Internet porn fantasy?
There was NO civility to be had from the Pubbies and their apologists at that time! None, nada, zip! They have NO right to ask for civil discourse, they threw that out with their vile, scum-sucking, verminous behavior when they thought they could “get” bill Clinton by using the sex card whenever and wherever they pleased.
So, when you say, with folded hands and eyes rolled skyward, “Can’t we have some civil political discourse? Please?” there’s only one answer.
No you fucking can’t! If you are going to act as an apologist and claim the impeachment thing was about lying and nothing more, you don’t DESERVE any civility. You can’t go have any shred of dignity, not after you mucked your dignity up with cum stains and soggy cigars. You used up all your civility creds back in 1999. You have no right, no standing, no basis whatsoever to ask for civility. It’s an obvious cheap ploy to make us forget about your blowjob fixation.
As far as I’m concerned, anyone who wants to say the Clinton impeachment was just about lying is a human civility humidor.
I actually don’t agree - the impeachment wasn’t about either lying OR sex, but about simple vindictiveness. It was really nothing more than an act of retribution, for which only a pretext was required, and the particular pretext didn’t really matter - it would have been something sometime. The lessons to be learned, for the politicians, are about political irresponsibility and abuse of power, and the lessons to be learned, for the citizenry, are about not enabling them.
The remaining supporters of that supreme folly do need to look in the mirror sometime and see themselves fondling that blue dress, saying “Yesss, my precioussss, at last we have that nasty little Billy, don’t we, hmmm?”
You must admit, the impeachment was an effective stategery. No Gore Adminstration, no Kerry Administration, and Yassir Arafat himself will rise from the dead before there will be a Hillary Administration. I figure we got at least three election cycles out of the deal. Works for me! 
Yes, milroyj, because the only thing that matters is “getting” the other side, yes?
And that sums up the difference between Democrats and Republicans – Democrats want what’s best for the nation, and Republicans just want to win.
Intense.
Can we say that the Clinton impeachment was about him being a Democrat and the Republicans looking for any excuse to go after him?
And that’s what’s changed about the Democrats. They used to want to give individuals the freedom to decide what’s best for themselves, and now they’ve become Republicans, meddling in people’s affairs for the sake of an abstraction.
come now, is this really an accurate statement?
People who are Democrats want what’s best for the country.
People who’re Republicans want what’s best for this country.
The idea that there is some nefarious group of righties who sit around plotting ways to fuck over the country as long as they win is silly.
No court anywhere at anytime has ever said that BC was guilty of sexual harassment. The judge in the PJ case dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that even if everything PJ said was TRUE (a condition which was granted only hypothetically) it still woud not have constituted sexual harassment.
BC cannot have “gotten away” with something that never occurred.
Even to say he was impeached for a blow job gives the impeachment too much credit. He was impeached because the Republicans wanted to get Bill Clinton by any means necessary. The perjury trap was just a device to bring that about…and it was a secondary plan at that. The original plan was to find something in Whitewater but after spending tens of millions of dollars and destroying the lives of dozens of people who had committed the sin of being friends with Clintons they still were unable to find a single act of criminality by either BC or his wife. They were about to give up. Whitewater was a failure. Starr was going to go to Pepperdine. Then John Goodman in drag dropped some illegal tape recordings in their laps and they had their “scandal.”
If only the Dems had the balls to investigate W’s fishy doings with Harken with the same zeal, unlimited budget, complete lack of conscience and ever changing, ever expanding “Calvin Ball” sense of jurisdiction and purpose that would allow the Dems’ own personal inquisitor to delve into stuff like W’s drug use or his wife’s sexual history.
Of course, Bush, unlike Clinton, is actually guilty of severe malfeasance in office so the money and effort would be better spent there. The Pubs didn’t have that option. They had to create a scandal themselves and that’s exactly what the perjury trap was…a manipulated “scandal,” the sole intent of which was to give them an excuse for an impeachment.
Well said.