[chicago charlie]

do you even understand the meaning of 'innocent until proven guilty? if the evidence was there, Ray should have prosecuted, otherwise, there is no guilt. that's the rule of law.

[mombonn]

if the evidence was there, Ray should have prosecuted, otherwise, there is no guilt. that's the rule of law.

By his own admission, ray gave him a pass. The people of the U.S. should have had the opportunity to hear and see the evidence, and have a jury decide on his fate.

Ray robbed us of that.

[CatoRenasci]

What you don't seem to understand is that the judgement of history, even of contemporaries, is not based on the same standard as the criminal law: just because (perhaps out of fear after the trashing of Judge Starr and many witnesses, and the death of others; or perhaps out of corruption or whatever -- and after the Senate's refusal to take serious charges against Clinton seriously) a decision is made not to prosecute, does not mean that Clinton is not guilty as Hell and, just because the criminal hasn't been jugged doesn't mean he's an upstanding citizen entitled to any respect or consideration from honest citizens.

Slick Willy has, uniquely among American presidents, earned the opprobrium with which he is regarded by honest men and women. He should be shunned and ignored, his rantings should go unreported and he should be consigned to the ash heap of history in the same way Tricky Dick was for so many years. The difference is that Nixon had real accomplishments that permit a balanced assessment of a complex, haunted character. Clinton was one dimensional, an Elmer Gantry in politics, a latter day Bryan without principle, a Huey Long without a white suit, a Savanorola without piety, an evil man without precedent in American history, a sure sign that the Mandate of Heaven is insecure.

[rw4site]

Re: "there is no guilt. that's the rule of law. "

Only in the eyes of the law. I say they are guilty. The clintons cannot be innocent until they stand trial. They are only presumed innocent until then. ....and if after a trial, there is nothing in law (yet) to prevent anyone from claiming their guilt. Example, O.J. is Guilty! maybe not in law, but in public opinion..

[sport]

I understand that.

I also stand by my comment on clinton apoligists, aiders and abettors.

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck....