(October 30, 2012 at 9:11 pm)Tino Wrote:The presidence though is relevence. Sex does not make Paula Jones and Monica on the same ball feild. Otherwise they could also ask about sex with his wife. The bottom line was that Paula Jones was about a crime and Monica was consentual.(October 30, 2012 at 8:01 pm)Brian37 Wrote: [quote='whateverist' pid='356519' dateline='1351640777']
Before anyone gets to purgery tell me when any government should have any right to force you to answer questions about a consensual sex act?
A special prosecutor has that power as does a grand jury. And given that the original issue was sexual harassment, it's not much of a surprise that questions about sex would be asked. As in many cases it was the attempt to cover up what happened that became a bigger issue than the initial offense.
The ethical stance in the Constitution isn't presumtion of guild, but due process and presumption of innocence. When a prosicutor OR JUDGE OR COPS in any case are out to get even and not simply stick to fact finding, they no longer have the long term interest of human rights at thought. When they start doing that they are nothing but viggilanties negating a need for a court at all,
I have consistantly said, IF IF IF IF IF Monica had been accusing Clinton of a crime of the same mannor, then the questioning would have been part of relevence, but since no criminal act was commited in that consensual act the court broke the law in brining it in in the first place.
Otherwise merely having porn on your computer or a copy of Mien Kompf means you are capable of murder. Relevence is supposed to establish a pattern, not make moral judgments on legal actions.
