And you conveniently forget that the President of the United States was a defendant in a sexual harassment case. If he could keep his pecker in his pants, he wouldn’t have been sued in the first place. Nobody made him lie under oath. That was a choice he made, and he was rightfully taken to task for it.
YOU conveniently forget how that “case” came to exist, and how and why it was made the basis of an entirely-political procedure, as well as how and why it ended.
It ended with Clinton paying her $850,000.00, but that is utterly irrelevant to the issue of lying under oath. There is no justifying that. Especially not from a sitting President and licensed attorney. Clinton deserved impeachment, and he deserved to lose his law license. It was his misconduct that caused those things to happen, not mean old Republicans picking on him.
I’m willing to bet that if I had an unlimited budget I could find something embarrassing about your life that you’d be evasive about.
That’s the trouble, the Star investigation sifted until they found something he was embarrassed about. And he was as evasive as humanly possible.
If I get you up in court and ask about (for instance) that one time you masturbated to trans-porn, you might lie too. That’s the point. Why the hell am I asking about something that is no one else’s business.
Clinton shouldn’t have lied, but he also should never have been asked that question.
Right, the sexual harassment case that had nothing to do with anything. The perjury came to light because Linda Tripp handed over a bunch of tapes to “Indpendent Counsel” Kenneth Starr, who already had his hands full investigating every other goddamn thing he could.
Starr is the one who identified the perjury. I’m not saying Clinton wasn’t guilty or anything, but why do you think Starr was investigating things at all? Because he really had a problem with perjury and wanted to see it stamped out? No, it’s because the Republicans were fishing for something to impeach Clinton over. That they happened to find something doesn’t make their motivations any more noble.
The questions he was asked were directly relevant to the issues in the lawsuit where he testified, under oath, as a defendant. Again, if the man had kept his pecker in his pants, he never would have been in that situation. The fault is his, and his alone.
That he had a consensual sexual encounter had nothing to do with sexual harassment.
So no, it had nothing to do with the lawsuit.
No internet cite, but I recall reading that the Whitewater/Lewinsky/impeachment process cost the US taxpayer more, adjusted for inflation, than the Louisiana Purchase.
Money dam well spent, I say. “We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure that our presidents will keep their peckers in their pants.” If only JFK had been such a man as to say this instead of that twadle about the “survival and the success of liberty.” Then his idolizer Clinton coud have spared our great nation so much anguish and shame.
You’re wrong as a matter of law.
I have no doubt that some will disagree. I humbly suggest that consensual sexual encounters have no bearing whatsoever on forced sexual encounters.
All a consensual sexual encounter provides evidence for is a pulse.
Is the fact that you purchased and ate a hamburger for lunch evidence that you stole a hamburger for dinner?
It also illustrates the convenient selectivity of your own memory. Thanks for the evidence.
You can keep telling yourself that all you like, but that will never make it true. Unfortunately the factual history you have conveniently forgotten tells a different tale.
Do you know what a “partisan hack” is?
The issue of whether or not Clinton should have had to testify about Lewinsky in the first place isn’t the point. Back on topic…
The Republicans went from point A (an “independent” Whitewater investigation) to point B (perjury during the Paula Jones lawsuit) to point C (impeachment).
There is absolutely no logical reason for them to have gone from point A to point B, unless you realize that point C was the final destination all along. They started at point A because it seemed like a good place to start, and then looked for a road to point C. Point B was the only route they could find, but impeachment was always the goal.
The parallel is that Republicans are now starting again at point A, Benghazi, and point C is still the same as before, impeachment. Oakminster is suggesting that we’re all crazy for thinking that there’s any serious desire to impeach Obama, but this is how it starts. We’ve seen it all before. Start an investigation at your most “promising” point, make every accusation you possibly can, even if your own accusations (Susan Rice was evil and wrong!) contradict your other accusations (Susan Rice is a clueless patsy!), and then just see where it takes you.
That’s an odd claim, considering that it IS your “Point B” in the timeline you proceeded to lay out. There being no facts to support their desired impeachment, despite Scaife’s/Starr’s strenuous efforts over many years and many millions of taxpayer dollars, the Republicans had to create one. And that was how they did it.
But Kenneth Starr had nothing to do with the Paula Jones lawsuit; it’s my understanding and belief that the (presumably neutral) courts ordered the lawsuit to proceed during his presidency, and he would have testified (and perjured himself) regardless of any Republican witch hunt. (eta: I may be wrong about that. I was a teenager at the time, and mostly interested in boobs and stuff.)
Now, the perjury was discovered because the Republicans were conducting an ongoing investigation that was willing to listen to any dirt that was brought to them (Linda Tripp’s recordings), but that’s a separate investigation and a separate issue.
Sexist! I want to see her do more of this cutting through the bullshit.
That is what I would say about Sen. McCain except that I want him to keep going on about it.
Please proceed, guv’nr!
Look in the mirror. The guy looking back at you personifies the term.
Cite: The landmark case of Rubber v. Glue. 
Wrong. Look into the Arkansas Project or Richard Mellon Scaife sometime.
Clinton was exonerated by the jury of Senators by a wide margin. That is law of the case. He was, however, civilly punished by Judge Wright, who should probably have recused herself because Clinton had been a professor of hers whom she disliked.
And yet it isn’t true that Kenneth Starr had nothing to do with the Paula Jones case. He was informally advising and communicating with Paula Jones’ lawyers throughout the Paula Jones case. He was not an independent counsel in any sense of the word. He was a behind the scenes advisor to another case against Clinton, the Paula Jones case, while prosecuting the president. And he did not disclose it at the time he was chosen, during, or prior to making his report. This was a far bigger betrayal of the public trust than Willie getting some on the side. It went directly to the heart of appointing an independent counsel and shows motive to in fact be quite partisan and dependent, with the intent to make the running of government by the elected officials impossible.
Hmm, never heard of it. So I read this. Seems like a tenuous connection at best. So Scaife donated money to a magazine with the instructions that it be used to smear Clinton. One of the journalists at this magazine dug up Paula Jones and published her story. Jones then had to decide to file a lawsuit on her own. Even still, Kenneth Starr had nothing to do with that.
The connection is that Kenneth Starr was investigating other things that Scaife also tried to bring into the spotlight. But we’re getting way too close to conspiracy theory for me.