Spunk:
Unlike the president, no none has attempted to criminalize Henry Hyde's private life yet.
Nope. And no one but Bill himself criminalized his private life.
By my recollection, Starr's investigation turned to the Monica Lewinsky matter after Monica blabbed a variety of things to Linda Tripp (who taped the conversations because she feared for her job and feared being trashed in a manner similar to what she'd seen before when the White House put its spin meisters in action). Thereafter, Starr's office began investigating the possibility that Bill was involved with (a) the sumission of a false affidavit in connection with the Paula Jones v. William Jefferson Clinton case and Clinton himself sat down in a deposition, swore an oath to tell the truth and proceeded to lie up a storm. This is wholly apart from that famous speech on TV where Bill said to the nation and world, "I didn not have sexual relations with that woman. Ms. Lewinsky." What a crock.
This didn't start because Starr was interested in Clinton's sex life. It started because Starr became aware that there was credible evidence that Clinton was involved in perjury and possible obstruction of justice.
And what does time have to do with it? If you committed the act, does the passage of time counteract it?
Time has everything to do with it, as does the definition of "the act." The "act" in Hyde's case was a private affair some 30 years ago. The "act" in this case was perjury and obstruction of justice, committed while Clinton occupied the highest elected office in the country. Clinton lied under oath, Hyde didn't.
Oh, you would have spilled the beans right off the bat would you?
If Clinton had admitted the affair 8 months ago in the deposition, we would not be where we are today. And, imagine this Spunk, if he had just apologized to Paula Jones several years ago (and it was a vague apology that would have satisfied her at that time) we never would have had to deal with the President of the United States invoking executive privilege in connection with a private lawsuit.
I agree this is different. Hyde's action are more premeditated and drove a family to split apart. I haven't heard ole Hank say he was sorry yet. Have you?
I may be wrong about this and I'm sure you'll correct me if I am, but as I understand it, the woman Hyde had his affair with was separated from her husband at the time. He didn't drive any family apart. It was already split up. Curious that Mr. Snodgrass chose this time to air his grievance. Where's he been the past 30 years? Hmmmm.
No this isn't about sex and it isn't about justice. THIS IS ABOUT POLITICS!
I'll agree with you on that one to a degree. But, think about this, what would have happened if the name was not Bill Clinton, but George Bush. The democrats would have been screaming for his resignation. Remember Clarence Thomas? He never diddled anyone, much less in or near his office at the EEOC, and he was pilloried by the Democrats. His crime it seems was making some off color remarks about Coke cans and pubic hairs and "Long Dong Silver." If you ask me, that's a far cry from engaging in sex with an employee half your age in the workplace. If Bill was the CEO of a corporation, he'd have been axed immediately for exposing the company to potential liability in a sexual harassment lawsuit. Can you spell quid pro quo?
Where are the Democratic feminists now who were so outraged at Clarence Thomas's behavior?
Yeah, I bet you feel a whole lot of concern for the first family.
How do you presume to question what I feel? I do feel badly for Chelsea Clinton. She didn't ask to be born into that family and she certainly didn't ask that her father diddle a woman who, at the time, was just a few years older than Chelsea is now. I imagine it's going to be a tough semester for her at Stanford. As for Hillary, that's another matter. She cut her deal long ago and has to live with it.
I've always found that fresh air works wonders for airing out bad smells. Perhaps the air will be clearing in D.C. in the coming weeks? |
