(October 30, 2012 at 7:46 pm)whateverist Wrote:(October 30, 2012 at 6:45 pm)Tino Wrote: Wrong again. It was for lying under oath. It's called perjury.
Yes .. lying under oath about sex. Perhaps you can spin it to being about harassing the young and vulnerable by abusing a position of authority. That certainly sounds different than receiving a BJ from an eager intern who can't swallow fast enough. Regardless, the lie given under oath was about sex.
Cheney and his ilk should be tried for war crimes and what was done to home owners by wall street was a much more contemptible crime. As Festive says, republican crimes are about serious things. Somehow democrats get harsher treatment over little things.
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? That purgury charge is fruit from the poison tree. They had no right asking him about that.
People who claim he should have been impeached for purgury are confusing his morality with beling licence to give a court the right to break the law itself which is what they did.
NOW if Monica had been accusing him of sexual harrassment like Paula Jones then the court would have had that right, but since she wasn't accusing him of that, they had no right and any judge worth their weight wouldn't have pulled this political witch hunt. If Clinton had been a no name the judge would have denied any prosicution request to bring Monica in on the objection of relivence. The purgury charge shouldn't have happend because the prosicution got a favor from a bias judge.
