[Mudboy Slim]

"...the burden of proof is on the person making the accusation."

The Burden of Proof is on Bill Clinton to prove that he didn't order the Waco Massacre, and to prove he didn't RAPE multiple women, and to prove he didn't COMMIT TREASON in selling out to the North Koreans and CommieChinese Tyrants Thugs!! Bill Clinton has broken the LAW on literally hundreds or thousands of FELONIOUS Occasions and the Burden of Proof as to why he should or should not be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law is ALL OF OURS!!

What Say YOU, RonF?! Are Bill Clinton and his SKANKY Butt-Ugly Wife above and beyond the laws that impact you and I?!

RonF, you look soooo cute in those kneepads and that bib and that blue dress...MUD

[RonF]

Nice attempt to change the subject. And I thought that the Clintons were supposed to be the masters of spin.

[Poohbah]

The Burden of Proof is on Bill Clinton to prove that he didn't order the Waco Massacre, and to prove he didn't RAPE multiple women, and to prove he didn't COMMIT TREASON in selling out to the North Koreans and CommieChinese Tyrants Thugs!!

Better sue the school who awarded you your JD...

I was under this obviously misguided impression that one was presumed innocent until proven guilty in a trial by a jury.

[Alamo-Girl]

Er, I'm with RonF on this. The defendant is assumed innocent until proven guilty so it is up to the prosecution to make its case to the jury.

IMHO, this is one reason why Bill Clinton has not been tried when a regular person would have been. To make the case, the prosecution would have to introduce information which would open the door to the defense making national secrets public. Like the shoe-bomber case only much more so.

There is also the political issue. If the actions were in any way discretionary and we prosecute Clinton, then down the road, some Democrat administration would prosecute Dubya for what they consider to be bad policy decisions.