<p>“So you are saying that Paula Jones didn’t get due process because Clinton lied about having an affair with Monica Lewinsky?”</p>
<p>Of course. That’s exactly right. Now you get it.</p>
<p>Mini this is what you wrote in another post…</p>
<p>“Clinton bombed the wastewater treatment plants, and then refused to allow shipment of simple antibiotics and anti-diarrheals to deal with the predictable results. A million people died, half of them children under age 5. The European nations charged him with genocide; Denis Halliday, the United Nations undersecretary, resigned, charging him with genocide.”</p>
<p>Most of the people died before the bombing which was in Dec 1998, correct?
And Denis Halliday resigned in what, Oct, 1998, before the bombing.</p>
<p>I read this and it reads like the bombing occured first “and then”. That’s not what happened.</p>
<p>The sanctions didn’t work. I don’t like sanctions very much because the poor are affected the most.</p>
<p>I actually prefer the Israeli method which is taking out the leaders.</p>
<p>"So you are saying that Paula Jones didn’t get due process because Clinton lied about having an affair with Monica Lewinsky?</p>
<p>Of course. That’s exactly right. Now you get it."</p>
<p>Zoosermom, sorry, I don’t see it the way you see it.</p>
<p>If Clinton sexually harassed Monica, and was asked did he ever sexually harass Monica, and then he lied under oath saying he never harassed her, then I would agree with you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I feel confident that Paula Jones got all the money she was promised by the Republican operatives who used her in a “gotcha” political attack.</p>
<p>The real breech of due process here is the open-ended witchhunt nature of the special prosecutor statute. It is a political weapon that is completely out of control. The taxpayers spent lord knows how many millions of dollars to find out that…shock of all shocks…Bill Clinton was a womanizer. Well, duh! Tell us something we didn’t already know.</p>
<p>What’s next? A billion dollar program to prove that John Kennedy had sex with Marilyn Monroe?</p>
<p>The Republicans and Democrats ought to wage a bipartisan effort the reign in the special prosector statute. Otherwise, presidents will continue to be the subject of political witchhunts.</p>
<p>“If Clinton sexually harassed Monica, and was asked did he ever sexually harass Monica, and then he lied under oath saying he never harassed her, then I would agree with you”</p>
<p>Dstark, you don’t know what happened, how it happened, why it happened. The judge may have ultimately ruled in favor of Clinton, but he was not above the law. No one is. He was court ordered to be deposed and he chose to lie under oath. That is a very serious thing. No one gets to decide when to lie in a court proceeding and when to tell the truth. It was also politically stupid and arrogant. he could have settled very early on with Paula Jones, but he gambled that he could destroy her name, along with MOnica’s, Kathleen Willey’s, Juanita Broaddick’s and he lost the gamble. But he did take his punishment like a man and I think his conduct has been all that one could ask for since leaving office. That said, imagine you had a legal dispute with someone. You had a side, they had a side, the judge said there were issues for the court to decide, then the other party lied under oath, wouldn’t you find that acceptable? The next person down the block could disagree with you and say that it’s ok for your opponent to lie because that person disagrees with you, and where does it end? Who gets to decide when a lie under oath is acceptable? You? Me? No. Everyone has to tell the truth and if they get caught lying, it is a crime and punishment is due. I had no problem with Clinton’s adultery and I bet if he had gone on tv in February of that year and been contrite and humble, it would have ended there. No impeachment, no inattentive president for the rest of his term. Perhaps 9/11 would have been stopped (not likely), but history would have been very different if he hadn’t lied under oath.</p>
<p>Zoosermom, I don’t know what happened and you don’t know what happened. If I learn new things, I may change my mind, unlike Bush.</p>
<p>If a person lies under oath about having an affair and it is not material to the case, I don’t care. Go ahead and lie.</p>
<p>“If a person lies under oath about having an affair and it is not material to the case, I don’t care. Go ahead and lie.”</p>
<p>The judge ruled that it was material. That’s the bottom line. Clinton accepted responsibility and apologized, why can’t you take his word for it?</p>
<p>why can’t you take his word for it?</p>
<p>What does that mean?</p>
<p>“What does that mean?”</p>
<p>You’re arguing that it doesn’t matter. Mr. Clinton admitted that his conduct did matter and accepted his punishment for it. I sincerely don’t understand how you could think any one person would ever be above the law.</p>
<p>It doesn’t matter to me when I judge Clinton.</p>
<p>“It doesn’t matter to me when I judge Clinton.”</p>
<p>Well that’s a whole other ball of wax and your right without question. But that’s not the point you’ve been making along this thread.</p>
<p>That is my point.</p>
<p>“That is my point.”</p>
<p>Now it is.</p>
<p>Zoosermom, I’m a lawyer who represents people in court. I take cases for people who have suffered a genuine loss, and I work hard to try to lessen their losses - not always successfully due to the current court bias against “the little guy.” I recognize that courts are abused for PR and political purposes all the time; but that doesn’t make it OK with me. That’s why I called you on the “big lie” pushed by right wing propagandists, and repeated by you:
The Paula Jones case wasn’t about a “private citizen” who had a “triable cause of action” - it was entirely a political act, pushed by political hacks, with no purpose but to score political points. Even assuming the truth of her claims, Paula Jones had suffered no damage - and I wouldn’t have taken her case for that reason. (The case was dismissed on that basis, and the dismissal appealed.) If the defendant were anyone but a political figure the case never would have been filed - period. There’s no shortage of examples of the gross hypocracy of the right wing, but pushing this bit of “frivolous litigation” as anything but the political stunt it was is pathetic.</p>
<p>Ahhh, zoosermom, you misunderstood me. 
That’s OK.
Have you ever seen the movie “The Hunting of the President”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sure that you have equally harsh words for the ACLU and their Scopes trial which was clearly a political stunt as well?</p>
<p>BTW, on the appeal, it became apparent that Clinton was going to lose so he agreed to pony up $850,000 to end the case.</p>
<p>“The Paula Jones case wasn’t about a “private citizen” who had a “triable cause of action” - it was entirely a political act, pushed by political hacks, with no purpose but to score political points.”</p>
<p>That is YOUR opinion but it was NOT the judge’s. I’m not arguing the merits of the case. I happen to agree that Paula Jones was used to further a political agenda. But, ultimately, the man was ordered deposed and he chose to lie. that is unacceptable.</p>
<p>Whereas Bush has only lied to, manipulated, and deceived the public about Iraq, building upon a foundation of ignorance, incompetence, and obstinancy. </p>
<p>I enjoy watching the dwindling numbers of dead-enders contort themselves in a manner that makes Aristotelian epicycles look clean and straightforward as they continue to defend Bush. But it won’t be “mission accomplished” until the neocons and their minions are purged, leaving the dead-enders free to concentrate on their canasta and tennis games.</p>
<p>The irony is delicious. BushCheneyCo. thought they could use Iraq as a tool to shatter the Democrats and install a perpetual Republican majority. I think the notion of the thousand-year Republican Reich may have been premature. Instead, Iraq is going to be an anvil attached to the ankles that will carry Republicans to the depths. I really wouldn’t mind save that the damage to the country while enduring this is so extreme. We’re going to be haunted by this for decades.</p>
<p>What did Bush lie about?</p>
<p>TheDad, some of us choose not to debate much more on these boards because it’s too much like arguing with a two year old. Over the last few years, I’ve tried to explain how conservatives might look at various situations differently, and a (your?) typical response is, “Bush lied, Republicans are stupid and/or evil.” (See post #40) At some point, it’s just not worth the aggravation to continue, as far as Im concerned.</p>