Clinton's Flea Bargain

[MrBill]

Actually, lying under oath simply requires one of two events to make it "legal??" ... A deal making one immune to prosecution ... or an attorney who can convince the jury that that's not what you said ("It depends on what you mean by is")

In the same discussion, I was informed that an attorneys job is to use the law to the best benefit of his client, truth has nothing to do with the law.  The law is simply a mechanism we use to "attempt" to arrive at the truth. (sic)

Quite a education for a know it all 20 year old from the sticks.  I  have never quite trusted our (U.S. of A.'s) legal system since.

------------------
OhNooo
smile awhile

[Lance]

 

The man did not have the "character" to be President. He proved this over and over again. Bye, bye billie....

Sorry, I missed that Eagler and wanted to respond to it.

That is one man's view, and one not shared by most of America in either of the elections or during the impeachment.  I believe your statement to be the prevailing attitude in most of the people that tried to destroy the Clinton presidency, however.  I am sure they felt perfectly justified in their actions and that they were doing a service to the country because of it, which may may be the scariest and most disappointing part of it all.

It is the people's responsibility to decide who is fit to be the President of the United States every four years.  It isn't the job of an opposition party and their pundits.  Simply thinking someone shouldn't be the President isn't justification for overturning an election.

We still live in a country in which our government is of the people, for the people, and by the people.  Thank God, and I hope it always stays that way.  The moment when a small group of moralists can decide who sits at the head of our government without any regard for the will of the citizenship will be the moment that democracy in this country has died.  At that point, you might as well rip up the constitution and use it for toilet paper.

[Eagler]

Lance

How do you know what the "will of the people" is/was or if the "majority" of the people wanted slick willie to stay in office? Do you base this on the poll info flaunted daily by the media? Polls turn out whatever way you want them to depending on the circumstances on which they are given and what audience is targeted. But please, keep believing the talking heads, they would not lead you astray.  

Eagler
 

[Lance]

:::chuckles:::  Partially.  Partially on the actions of the conservatives who sought to overturn an election and pulled up short.  If the majority of America wanted that never-shoulda-been-President slick Willie hung up by the balls and run outta Washington, what stopped it from happening?  The benevolence of the Republican party?  

If you are interested in being taken seriously, you should wean yourself from this "polls are fixed, biased liberal media" security blanket that some conservatives cling to whenever reality gets difficult to accept  If you want to change a rational person's opinion about it, you'll have to come up with more evidence than "This didn't agree with me so it must be biased!"   As for putting faith in the talking heads, the only people I hear frothing about the biased liberal media are the conservative talking heads and the people that tune in to them.  Which are also the only people I know who felt like Bill Clinton should have been run out of office.  Hmm, I see a pattern developing here.  

Whether you want to delude yourself into thinking that America really believed Bill Clinton should have been impeached or not is your business.  What you can't deny is that America elected Bill Clinton.  Twice.  You can't ignore those polls, Eagler, though I'll be dammed if some of those conservatives of good character and unquestionable probity didn't try to put their own brand of bias on them in trying to overturn them altogether.

[Mighty1]

Lance are you trying to say you belive all the polls you see?

I don't belive ANY poll I see unless I know how many they polled and from what area they polled from.

I can do a poll (as CNN does) from New York or LA and only poll 100 people and get that Bill Clinton was the best president ever but if I go to Indianapolis or hell even my own home town of Bedford I would get that he is the worst president ever. So which poll is correct? Each side has their reasons for thinking their way so who is right and who is wrong?

Most TV stations are biased one way or the other no matter if you belive it or not.

I personally think Clinton should have been impeached for lying under oath.

It really doesn't matter to me that he had sex in the White house but the fact he lied under oath to try and cover up his affair so it couldn't be used against him in another trial was wrong.

The man sexually harassed Paula Jones then was caught screwing around with Monica and when that was going to be used in the Paula Jones case he lied. THAT is why they went after him not because he had an affair but because he lied to try and get away with the harassment.

This may be partially political but yeesh come on the man did lie multiple time in court and spent OUR tax dollars defending those lies and you guys are pissed at the people who were trying to prove he lied?

Why is he different than anyone else? If you or I were in court for sexual harassment and we were caught lying about it we would be in jail.

[lacy fish]

Us who has been looking at "the hole mess"
from outside(europe),have had a good laugh,,
no,you overthere has just lost a god president,,,,,,,,,,,,and the new one you got,
well do I really have say what i mean,I dont
want to use harsh language

[Eagler]

 

Originally posted by lacy fish:
Us who has been looking at "the hole mess"
from outside(europe),have had a good laugh,,
no,you overthere has just lost a god president..

No lacy, only slick willie thought of himself as a "god president"  

Eagler

[Toad]

hmmm...

I see there's a lot of people on this board from whom I had better not accept a verbal contract signed with a handshake.

[Maverick]

 

Originally posted by Toad:
hmmm...

I see there's a lot of people on this board from whom I had better not accept a verbal contract signed with a handshake.

Toad,

I'd get video and have at least a half dozen witnesses before accepting a contract from some of those posting here. I'd also get money up front and in cash only.

Mav

[jedi]

If the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were caught "shtupping" his secretary ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY DURING DUTY HOURS when he was SUPPOSED to be doing...er...General stuff, he'd be gone in a heartbeat.  If the secretary was 21 years old, and considered the Chief to be her superior, you can bet the JAG would be making a pretty credible case for sexual harassment, not "consensual sexual activity."

If the General then lied about this under oath, he'd be in Leavenworth, or at least mandatorily retired at reduced rank and in disgrace.

Now, I'm not suggesting we hold the "Commander in Chief" to the same standards we hold his troops to, especially since this particular "commander" is singularly lacking in almost ANY quality possessed by those he "commanded" (read: used for political purposes to further his own self-centered agenda).  But surely even the Democrats have SOME standard of behavior that it would be reasonable to expect the freeking PRESIDENT to adhere to?  Some standard that includes not having sex in the freeking OVAL OFFICE and then actually OBEYING the laws he's sworn to uphold???

Here's a hint: I kind of expect the President to actually WORK when he's at the office.  After all, that's what WE pay him for.  Boinking the staff is not what the President does.  It's not even what the manager of a McDonalds does.

This was NEVER about "sex."  It was about irresponsibility, arrogance, and dishonesty.  Not exactly the qualities I look for in a Commander-in-Chief or a Chief Executive either, no matter how much the Democrats wish to lower my standards.

[Toad]

Jedi,

I think we're dealing with the new concept that "a man's word is meaningless".

It's a new world, with new standards for honesty and integrity.

I share your "old timer" views, however.

[Dnil]

I concur, Toad and Jedi.  No honor anymore.  


I to remember when your word was your bond.

------------------
Dnil---Skyhawk until I get Dnil back
Maj. 900th Bloody Jaguars
Part time aircraft restorer. www.kingwoodcable.com/jheuer

[Maverick]

For some of us, "your word" and honor still mean something. A few of us curmudgeons will still behave like that while we are on this rotating ball of dirt.

Mav