Current or modern politics in the United States

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by chesterburnett

I, too, felt like his affairs were between him, Hillary and God. I was very critical of the GOP for pursuing it. Wasted time.

I would go further. Ken Starr was given a very specific commission-- to investigate allegations of corruption in the Clinton's real estate dealings in the "Whitewater" matter. He found none.

But he took it on himself to expand his jurisdiction to "all things Clinton", and hearing of an affair, he created an offense which had not existed prior to his investigation by
a) kidnapping Monica Lewinsky with FBI agents and grilling her to obtain embarassing information about a private consensual sexual relationship that was itself no crime
and then
b) demanding that the President testify under oath about entirely private but embarrassing sexual behavior.

This was a grotesquerie. I am angry at Clinton for one and only one thing-- that he answered questions on this at all. The prospect of prosecutors pursuing people --- whether august or ordinary, and grilling them over things which they know to be no crime --but which they know to be embarassing, and then prosecuting them for mis-statements in this regard, that's an abomination, and a terrible precedent.

Who among us would like to see the massive powers of Government Prosecutors devoted to rifling our private papers and interviewing our intimates, and then to ourselves be grilled and prosecuted for inconsistencies?

The Republicans and Starr never paid an adequate price for what was a truly despicable bit of political savagery. The Constitution can easily, and has many times, survived a President who got the occasional blowjob from someone not his wife. It can't survive Starr Chambers . . .

[SanteeFats]

I have made comments about Clinton's little faux pas before. I think it was brought, as do others, just because. But it seems that what does piss me off about it does not bother any one else. He lied to us under oath.

[sydbarrett]

If Clinton did what he did in the private sector, he'd be fired and subject to a lawsuit. Plus, he was getting blowjobs on the public's dime, and then lied to the American public about it.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by sydbarrett

If Clinton did what he did in the private sector, he'd be fired and subject to a lawsuit. Plus, he was getting blowjobs on the public's dime, and then lied to the American public about it.

No, he'd have been subject to nothing at all. In the private sector there'd have been no case of any kind.

There are no special prosecutors in the private sector, kidnapping witnesses with the FBI agents, assembling dossiers and demanding sworn testimony from people regarding consensual sexual conduct.

[SanteeFats]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

No, he'd have been subject to nothing at all. In the private sector there'd have been no case of any kind.

There are no special prosecutors in the private sector, kidnapping witnesses with the FBI agents, assembling dossiers and demanding sworn testimony from people regarding consensual sexual conduct.

Not necessarily true DS. In this era of PCness public pressure, board of directors, upper management, and any other number of factors could easily lead to some one being fired for cause.
Then there is the possibility that the blower would be more than happy to file sexual harassment charges against the blowee. Money, money, money.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

Not necessarily true DS. In this era of PCness public pressure, board of directors, upper management, and any other number of factors could easily lead to some one being fired for cause.
Then there is the possibility that the blower would be more than happy to file sexual harassment charges against the blowee. Money, money, money.

Again, there was no case of any kind without Starr's kidnapping of Lewinsky, with the use of his FBI agents.

Lewinsky hadn't complained to Starr. Starr kidnapped Lewinsky, held her incommunicado, threatened her with prison, and interrogated her without an attorney about purely private sexual conduct that had no connection at all to the real estate dealings he was supposed to be investigating. He then demanded sworn testimony from the President of the United States, and prosecuted him for inconsistencies with Lewinsky's account.

In the private sector, Starr's actions would have been kidnapping. No corporate counsel can grab a young woman off the street and demand that she discuss her sex life-- that would be the crime, for anyone else but Starr.

Note that not only did Starr put the Republic through the wringer, he basically destroyed Ms Lewinsky's life, for no reason at all save his sick vendetta against a better man.

In case you haven't guessed it, I think he's the lowest of the low, and if there's any justice in this world, he'll be bunking with Roy Cohn in Hell.

[SanteeFats]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Again, there was no case of any kind without Starr's kidnapping of Lewinsky, with the use of his FBI agents..

Deep I never denied there was no case against Clinton. I agree it was a witch hunt. I just can not forgive some one who lies under oath. Especially the POTUS.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

Deep I never denied there was no case against Clinton. I agree it was a witch hunt. I just can not forgive some one who lies under oath. Especially the POTUS.

What I found disgraceful was the victimising of Miss Lewinsky by all sides in this unedifying story. Prosecutor Starr violated her civil rights in a naked exhibition of bullying for which he should have had his teeth kicked in. Mr Clinton showed us all what sort of chap he really is with the "that woman" bit of his extremely well known lie; that is the part I remember against him.

I couldn't give a rats arse about Mr Clinton lying under oath because the prosecutor abused the oath and the process by asking the question in the first place. It reminds me of the Normans in English history making a big point out of the fact that Harold Godwinson swore an oath to recognise William the Bastard as King of England...when Harold was a prisoner in Willaim's dungeons at the time. The oath means nothing unless it is freely given and fairly used. But the miserable low level treachery towards Miss Lewinsky disgusted me; Mr Clinton was under an immoral obligation to her. The girl was foolish but she was not mean or cruel or vindictive and in a way she was rendering her country a service. IMHO she is the only sympathetic figure in the story and I have pity for her; she was very badly treated. Mr Starr was a scumbag and a swine, but Mr Clinton was not a good chap either.

[9876543210]

SanteeFats,

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

I have made comments about Clinton's little faux pas before. I think it was brought, as do others, just because. But it seems that what does piss me off about it does not bother any one else. He lied to us under oath.

So you think no other politician has done the same? And for worse reasons? Reagan lied about Iran-Contra (maybe not under oath) but, it would seem to me, that was a much more important series of lies.

And I would also guess that probably 90% of males, at some time in their lives, has lied about an infidelity. So most all of us would have done the same as Clinton.

[SanteeFats]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

SanteeFats,

So you think no other politician has done the same? And for worse reasons? Reagan lied about Iran-Contra (maybe not under oath) but, it would seem to me, that was a much more important series of lies.

And I would also guess that probably 90% of males, at some time in their lives, has lied about an infidelity. So most all of us would have done the same as Clinton.

That may be true 9 but my contention is Clinton was PRESIDENT, swore to tell the truth and instead of taking the 5th lied instead.
I guess I am one of the few remaining Americans who believe my word is my bond and when I take an oath to tell the truth I do it even if it is painful.
I like how when ever some one says something negative about a D you always seem to come back with but an R did this.