And the republicans have been in complete control for how long? A more truthful statement ne’er has been spoken on this blog.

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Lord Acton, Letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, 1887

And the question remains just as you stated. You just don’t understand the difference between a President of the United States lying under oath, and minor bureacrat doing it. And that is the problem with the leftist democrats in this country in general.

Impressive Latin phrase, no matter how irrelevant.

The discussion which started as the relevance your equating contempt of court in a civil case, not exactly a felony, to conviction of perjury and obstruction in a criminal case which obviously is. Now it’s down to
The President should know better and he is now a bad influence on the the common people.
Whatever?????????????

The President is the titular chief law enforcement officer for the United States, and if HE can’t follow simple instructions to “tell the truth”, and in fact is chastised by a federal judge for it, well, how can we expect the hoi polloi to?

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

your reality testing needs some work (so does your spelling PERJURY)

Clenis remains the only disbarred president in the history of the united states….and if you think the POTUS lying before a court is just a little minor pecadillo…well, thankfully you and your types aren’t running the country. But please….spread it around…I think it will help the republican chances for re-election!

U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright found President Bill Clinton in civil contempt of court Monday for his “willful failure” to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit.

Civil contempt of court, what a heinous crime! Unfortunately he wasn’t convicted of anything, regardless of how you want to phrase it. He was found in contempt of court by a judge (not a jury) for “false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process .
Also note that in her ruling the terms purjury or lying were not used.

To equate whatever crimes you “think” Clinton commited in this case with being convicted in court by a jury of purjury and obstructing justice is rather weak to put it mildly. But since I want to return the favor it’s OK by me if that makes you feel better. It’s obviously cheaper than psychotherapy, right.

Sort of reminds me of that great line in “Stripes”:

“CONVICTED of a felony? No Sarge, never actually convicted….” LOL

You obviously don’t ever watch CNN, MSNBC, Fox or any of the major news networks then because was shown ad infinitum for almost two weeks.
Want to start making comparisions as to how may politicians in each of the two major parties have been accused of crimes regarding Abramoff?
I didn’t think so.

What the Arkansas judge said.

‘In a biting, 32-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright of Arkansas said Clinton gave  false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process in Jones s sexual harassment lawsuit. She specifically cited Clinton s assertions that he was never alone with Lewinsky and that he did not have a sexual relationship with the former White House intern.

Wright, who personally presided over Clinton s January 1998 deposition in the Jones case, acknowledged that no court had ever taken such action against a president but said it was important to act to  protect the integrity of the judicial process.

 Sanctions must be imposed, not only to redress the president s misconduct, but to deter others who might themselves consider emulating the president of the United States by engaging in misconduct that undermines the integrity of the judicial system, she said.

Dugger

Funny, I didn’t see left-blogs swarming when George “Bank of Kos” Soros’ insider trading conviction was upheld by a French court last week, either.

I guess there were just too many tough questions to ask, eh? Or maybe its that whole “biting the hand that feeds you” thing. But of course taking dirty money from a crooked financier is perfectly okay if you’re using it to expose the real “culture of corruption.”

Definition: obstruction of justice
The criminal offense, under common law and according to the statutes of many jurisdictions, of obstructing the administration and due process of law.

Obstruction of justice is a little more than just lying or purjury. Clinton was accused of purjury and obstruction of justice but he was convicted of nothing, nada. He was officially aquitted by the Senate. That means for those who keep saying the opposite you are officially wrong, no matter how many times you wish to repeat it.

Safavian is lying about taking money to waste taxpayer dollars. Clinton lied about fucking an intern. You fucking can’t see the difference? Are you simple? Did you get dropped down a well? Both are wrong, sure. But that’s like saying “Some douchebag stabbed Dr Pedro’s eye out with a fork, and another guy patted Dr. Pedro on the head. THEY’RE IDENTICAL MISDEEDS.
You know this too. You’re just turd-stirring. You don’t really care about Duke or Safavian or Abramhoff or any of that because you’re morally empty. You’re nothing but a yelping hyena, dumbly repeating shit over and over again.

Personally, I think you’re stupid AND evil, and should be kept in a cage and have vegetables thrown at you by schoolchildren.