>You know, perjury about his private sex life, given in a collateral line of questioning the judge later ruled not essential, in a lawsuit that proved to be frivolous, and was dismissed for failure to make any plausable demonstration of damages, and which was paid for and directed specifically to conduct a sexual inquisition to bring the President down. Which the Starr inquisition insisted on re-asking before the Grand Jury, so he could up the perceived seriousness. That perjury.<
You against misrepresent what Clinton has done. He could easily have avoided this by coming clean. He did not. He lied repeatedly, in and out of court, each time increasing the severity of his crime. He also lied to deny justice to another American.
I agree that having sex with a teenager is reprehensible, and told Michelle as much, and in no way was I defending such behavior. I wanted to understand her reasoning. In other words, I wanted to determine if she had been swayed against sex with a teenager exclusively because the law forbid it (in which event she weakens her case for the President), or is it because she believes there something magically or biologically allowable about sex with an 18 year old (in which case I would like to know what this is).
My goal is not to get Clinton, and if you do not know this by now, you cannot be very bright. |
