> The President lied under oath in a case that happens to be about sex (sexual
> harassment). If possible, imagine the case was about some other form of
> malfeasance . . . like money. Clinton's treatment of other subordinates was
> material testimony. If it was about misappropriation, we could ask him for
can we just stop this thread? (well I know we can't but it doesn't hurt to ask)
anyway you all just don't get it do you? perhaps a little reading up on the
law is in order here. who said Clinton lied about sex? was Clinton acting
alone all by himself? or did Clinton act on the advice of his lawyers?
because if he did, he is not, will not, cannot be held accountable on the
advice of his lawyers. that is the law.
in other words, if Clinton's lawyers told him to lie, and admit doing so,
then he is off the hook. circle gets the square.
when you want it it goes away too fast, when you hate it it always seems to last. - Marilyn Manson
<> email@example.com <>