Still don't get it, do you, Dan? Evasion? Politicians are good at evasion, right up until they are placed under oath and asked simple, direct, unambiguous questions. In civil cases. Then, the perjurer really has to work at it, like not understanding the word "alone."
The issue, as even your trusted WH mouthpieces and his formal defenders before the committee admit, is not really the fact that he lied but whether or not those acts were impeachable offenses - did it rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors" that would warrant a markup of a bill of impeachment for the House to debate and vote on and a potential trial in the Senate.
What, for you Dan, would constitute an impeachable offense on the part of Bill Clinton? I think one of your earlier responses to a similar question indicated clearly that he could pretty much do as he wants, therefore, your judgement of what an impeachable offense is clearly suspect.
All politics? So what? What do you think goes on in D.C., card games? You think Democrats would be walking away from an impeachment effort if a Republican president had done the exact same things? He'd be gone by now.
Spare me the complaining about earnest lectures, Dan, at least they're mine and not the concocted, strained drivel of the spin-machine at the WH trying to turn the issue away from the guilty party.
Keep swinging the diversionary bat, Dan.
Mr. K. |
