Originally Posted by Stinger
He wasn't prosecuted he copped a plea, and it wasn't for having sex, why do you repeat that fallacy. So this is payback time for you, Clinton should have been allowed to have done what he did? Then why not Delay, if you think it was OK for Clinton to break the law why not Delay?
And what is it exactly that the indictment accuses Delay of doing that was wrong? And quote from the indictment.
Why do you believe I wear panties and they are twisted?
I thought you said "we" actually know what happened. Obviously you don't. One had nothing to do with the other.
You sound sure of that so like I asked before cite the part of the indictment that specifically says that he was doing that.
No obviously you do not. Ken Star was independent council to investigate several items, one of which was Whitewater.
No he didn't somehow get off on it. Clinton and Lewinsky attempt to get Linda Tripp to commit a felony, perjury and obstruction of justice. Tripp told the OIC that this was happening. The wired her and caught Lewinsky asking her in detail to do just that. Starr then took the evidence to Reno. Reno then said he should add it to his office since he was the only OIC operating. Starr didn't want the case but Reno assigned it to his office anyway.
Well can you imagine how an investigation into someone's sexual behavior and sexual harassment and sexual assualt of subordinate employees would not? How would you investigate it with getting into it?
And that he did not reward Lewinsky with special favors and attention and that he did not tamper with Betty Curry.
Why would you want him to have done it? Wouldn't it be better for everyone if what is accused of happening didn't happen in the first place?
Or is you vindictiveness just to much to contain?
Well if I were a girl and I were wearing panties that were in a wad then I would say to you that it's not polite to look up womens dressess.
Oh and I'm still waiting for you to cite the specific part of the indictment that accuses Delay of something.
galenrox said:
But in the end, what was he impeached for?
oh yeah, lying about getting his **** sucked.
Siggghhh, read the above again I do into detail. He was impeached for lying in a federal civil rights lawsuit about his relationships with subordinate employees. Now don't you think that when bosses are sued by employees for sexual harassment that the evidence of thier sexual relations with employees is important evidence? Should they be allowed to lie about it in court?
To be honest, I had no idea most of what else that went on, cause I was 14 years old at the time.
For someone interested in politics I would think you would have read so unbias'd books about what actually happened. If was certainly not as Hillary or Gene Lyons or the great left wing conspiricy painted it.
Considering that you wanted to bring down Clinton for anything he possibly could be,
Considering that you were only 14 at the time, didn't know me at all I find your statement without basis. What I wanted was a President who upheld the law and respected the office. Clinton did neither.
I'm assuming that you know more about it than me.
That is probably a good assumption.
What I know is he was actually indicted for perjury about lying about a blowjob, if I'm wrong about that, please let me know.
You are., He was not indicted he copped a plea. He was held in contempt of court for obstruction of justice, Judge Wright turning over the criminal prosecution to the OIC. His obstuction concerned his sexual relationship with a subordinate employee, his filing a false affidavit in court, his tampering with witnesses, his rewarding employees who do engage in sexual activity with him.
Being investigated about anything else is really irrelevant, since he was not indicted for anything else other than the blowjob, and that judge found him guilty of sexual harassment.
Again he wasn't indicted he copped a plea to avoid one. And the judge did not find him guilty of sexual harassment. She dismissed the case because Jones could not show that her employment had been harmed after Clinton's failed attempt to grop her and elict sexual favors from her. She had some evidence but not compelling evidence. The statue for sexual assualt had run out and Judge Wright said that was what she had a chance at, but it was too late. Later the laws were interpreted such that actual harm did not have to be shown, only the fear at the time that if the person being harassed didn't give in they would be harmed and that if other employees who give the sexual favors get rewards and special treatment then it is sexual harassment. Pretty much common sense. Should Clinton have been allowed to get away with his lying about it?
And I'm probably not going to read those indictments. DeLay had to step down since he was charged with a felony.
You should to see if you can find what he is charged with, and he is having to step down because he is a Republican, if he were a Democrat he would not. Why don't the Democrats have the same rule? How come the demanded he step down when they don't demand the same of their own?
If he's found guilty, it'll be great, if not, either he didn't do it or he covered his trail well enough, and considering he's one of the most powerful people in America, I wouldn't be suprised if he did.
Did what?
So yeah, if he wasn't accused of anything, why did he step down as the 2nd most powerful republican in the house?
Because a prosecutor got an indictment against him. Oh excuse got another one since the first one was falsely filed.
