@revelette1,
revelette1 wrote:
Well, I read your later post, the fact is Bill Clinton was never charged with perjury in a court of law much less convicted. So layman's post is bull crap. Bill Clinton admitted to making false statements and apologized for it. In my judgement, it was enough for what he did. He has had to live with that legacy all these years and in the end it was nothing but a sexual matter. I am done discussing this.
He wasn't specifically charged with perjury so he couldn't be convicted of a perjury charge, but the Independent Counsel's finding was that there were grounds for a charge of perjury although he ultimately used his discretion and concluded Clinton had
suffered enough.
In a 32 page opinion, U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright (the judge who cited him for contempt) wrote "The record demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the President responded to plaintiff [Paula Jones]'s questions by giving false, misleading, and evasive answers
that were designed to obstruct the judicial process... It is difficult to construe the President's sworn statements in this civil lawsuit concerning his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky as anything other than a willful refusal to obey this court's discovery orders.... Simply put, the President's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. Lewinsky
was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false, notwithstanding tortured definitions and interpretations of the term 'sexual relations'."
So a US District Court Judge found that, not only had Clinton, intentionally lied under oath, he did so
in an effort to obstruct justice.
Are you suggesting that the judge found a sitting president in contempt of her court because she found extra-marital affairs reprehensible? Your insistence on describing the entire matter as
nothing but a sexual one displays remarkable loyalty to a favorite political figure, but it's incredible.
I somehow doubt that you will find it in yourself to rely on tortured, hyper-technicalities to exonerate Trump of any
real wrongdoing. I could be wrong here, and if I am forgive me, but based on the extent of your animus for Trump, I find it difficult to believe you were as forgiving of him concerning his "pussy grabbing" comment, because, after all,
in the end it was nothing but a sexual matter.
I will agree that for many of those who voted to impeach him, politics and politics alone was their motivation, but as has been argued, more than once, by someone who might be described as generally sharing your political views -
hightor, the impeachment process is a highly political one. You see his lying in an effort to obstruct justice as a foolish, albeit harmless, mistake because it enabled to Republicans to spring their sinister trap. If I am arrested, prosecuted and convicted of robbery by a police detective and DA that personally despise me for unrelated reasons, it doesn't make me any less guilty of a crime. Had the basis of Clinton's impeachment been groundless and thus purely the exercise of political power I would consider it an attempt to overturn a free election, but it wasn't and US District Court Judges don't write scathing 32 page opinions and issue $90,000 fines because of foolish but harmless errors.
If you're done with discussing this, that's fine with me.
