<< But don't worry, there won't be many civil suits against sitting presidents. >>
I've never believed the Paula Jones accusations. Her accusations against Clinton could've been untrue. If they were untrue, then she and her backers used this Civil Suit weapon very effectively against Clinton.
You don't think that future Presidents will have any enemies who will want to use civil suits against the President as a political weapon? It would be a relatively easy thing to do. The Supreme Court has opened the door so that anyone with a grievance against a president, real or imagined, can file a civil suit against him.
It would be hard to believe that political groups won't want to use this new and powerful political tool.
<< But when there is a real case, well hell, I don't see why he
should be immune, even if i see your point and could otherwise worry about it. >>
Suppose it is not a real case? Suppose there is more than one case? Do we want our President focusing on our nations problems, or spending hours upon hours preparing for civil suits? Is this a good use of our president's valuable time?
Plus it opens the door to perjury traps.
<< Really, It's HE who is clearly guilty or he wouldn't worry about it and wouldn't consider paying anyone off. >>
He is clearly guilty of getting a BJ in the White House and trying to cover it up. Clinton wasn't worried about the merits of Paula Jones case, IMHO. But, he didn't want to have to testify again, under oath, about his relationship with Monica, where more specific questions might be asked.
I'm surprised, though, that anyone would want a sitting President subjected to Civil Court proceedings.
|
