<< > Oh right, Clinton the victim. She was young and immature but I don't
> she was psycho.
I don't think she was psycho, either. I think she was incredibly
shrewd, manipulative, gold-digging bitch. I agree with Greg: if it
weren't for transactional immunity, there'd be a pretty damed good
extortion case, and perhaps other potential civil and criminal charges,
Maybe, but one of the witnesses has no credibility.
> A highly influential Presidential five minutes
> expended on finding a job for someone just because you like the way
> your cigars is still too much time.
GMAFB. This kind of job reference / "old boy" crap happens all the
time. It's *perhaps* an impeachable offense, but it's one that *EVERY
SINGLE POLITICIAN* practices. It's the lubrication on which our whole
"wonderful" political system flows. ("Favors" being loosely defined,
here --- no matter if it's cigars, campaign contributions, or just
vaguely defined "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" exchange.
Here's a thought, Geege: maybe you're the one hung up on sex. I don't
care if it's a blowjob or a promise to put a large federal project in
*your* congressional district. Backscratching is backscratching, and it
happens all time, and if you're gonna make the call on it, be fair.) To
think otherwise is incredibly naive. Apply the idealistic bullshit
uniformly, if you want to apply it.
Here's another thought: Don't go global on this - focus, focus, focus.
The specific thing is this: the jobs for sex is no big deal on its own, but
in some contexts it would help substantiate another's claim of sexual
harassment. It's what's known in legal circles as "corroborative testimony."
The whole thing started when Monica let it slip that she might lie under oath
in a case in which testimony about jobs for jobs was deemed relevant.
I love these "arguments." Void of critical thinking they rely on lame excuse-
isms like "It's done all the time." It's not naivite or some sexual hangup
that makes me reject it. The argument, she clarified.
> It doesn't make the President any less guilty. In fact, the worse she
looks, the worse he looks.
BWAAA HAHAHAHA! ;-)
> At best, he put himself and his office in harm's way.
Nolo contendre on that one, counselor.
That's no small thing.
> Unless he's stupid as all get out
I think we can stipulate that. Nonetheless, stupidity's not an
Too bad for him it's not a defense, which was my point. But you're right;
the underlying cause doesn't matter. BTW, did you know that actuarials list
different degrees of stupidity in their tables?
Disassemble, disassemble, disassemble...
G "I'm Not A Feminist" Schumie