Replies

"just try to remember all of Clinton's crimes in order and in detail." OK. Let's see. Monica wanted to "get with" Bill. Bill let Monica perform oral sex on him several times, but always urged her to stop before he ejaculated. One time however, she begged him to let her continue, and she did and he left a semen residue on her blue dress. (Bad technique?) Meanwhile Clinton was being sued in a civil action for sexual harrassment. Note the difference between being sued in a civil action and being prosecuted for a crime. Paula Jones alleged that he exposed his genitals to her in a hotel room and asked her for oral sex. She refused and according to her account, he said "OK". At a pretrial deposition for the civil action, he was shown a lengthy definition of sexual contact written in legalese and asked if he had ever had sexual contact with Monica. He said "no", later claiming that the definition was worded so as to allow for assymetrical sexual contact -- ie, A has sexual contact with B, but B doesn't have sexual contact with A. To prove he committed a crime a prosecutor would have to prove, not only that he lied (and given the case law, that's harder than one might expect), but that the lie was material to the civil action. The standard here, remember is proof beyond reasonable doubt. I haven't heard much on why it would be material to the issues raised in the civil action, but maybe you can help out on that point. Interestingly, the civil action was dismissed before trial. Essentially the judge held that even if every allegation Paula Jones made were true, Clinton's conduct would not constitute sexual harrassment. (Is that right? In retrospect, I don't understand why Clinton's lawyer wasn't able to postpone his pre-trial deposition until that issue had been settled. There's no need for anyone to give a deposition if the facts alleged aren't actionable.) In any event, a Republican controlled House of Representatives charged Clinton on four counts. He was tried by the Senate. Republicans held a majority in the Senate but still acquitted him of all charges. No prosecutor has ever brought a case. I don't have a TV, so I feel like I missed a lot. So feel free to add in what I've missed. Make no mistake. I think Clinton is a Bad Man. And I think Bush is a Good Man. But Bush is the one with a record. And drunk driving is a serious offense.

Sir, or Madame, I do not quarrel with your colorful illustration, but I do wish to thank you for illustrating my contention that Libertarians seem to have a certain fixation on sexual acts. I know not from whence they come, but curiously, they seem want to view & discuss many issues in these terms. Of course, I may jump to this point too easily-one of the subjects whom you discuss was either engaged in some liason of either espionage, influence peddling or one of a sexual nature, every waking moment. So you have only focused on one third of his activities. Perhaps I should apologize & withdraw my observation, but on the otherhand...

ref to your post #10
Your response reminds me of the scene from STRIPES where Bill Murray and his buddy are in the Army recruiter's office. The recruiter asks them if they have ever been convicted of any crimes and they look at each other and ask Convicted??? (smiles on their faces) no - never convicted. Of course they both know they have done plenty of "bad things" but they just have never been caught.
I think Clintons response would be the same. The real measure of a man is "can he learn from his past mistakes?" Yea Bush has been convicted of drunk driving but that was in the past and he no longer engages in that type of behaviour. Can Clinton say the same about his behaviour???