Comments on: U.S. Attorney Scandal: Republicans Don’t Get It

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 22:42:33 +0000

Clinton was not disbarred. He was suspended.

By: midderpidge

midderpidge — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 00:04:38 +0000

I guess all Clinton had to do is say Monica Lewinski was there to advise him on some trivial matter, claim Executive Priveldge and tell the court to go fuck off then.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 22:30:08 +0000

SpiderJ,

Since you don’t know …

In the early 90’s (and I think partially because feminists were riding high because Anita Hill made “sexual harassment” a household phrase) several laws were introduced that gave attorneys radical priviledges with respect to sexual harassment lawsuits.

As Jay Tea pointed out in the comments above, these laws were signed by Clinton himself and vetted by the Supreme Court.

Under these new laws, the discovery phase of a sexual harassment trial could include the questioning of the defendant, under oath, about previous sexual affairs in order to establish a pattern of predatory sexual behavior or abuse. Whether you agree with this or not, it is the law.

Bill Clinton was sued by Paula Jones, who claimed among other things that Clinton exposed his penis and asked her to “kiss it.”

During the discovery phase of the trial associated with the Jones lawsuit, Clinton testified in Little Rock, Arkansas, under oath in front of a Federal judge, with regard to his sexual affairs. The questioning was completely permissable under sexual harassment laws. And Bill Clinton lied his ass off. He committed perjury.

That’s why he was impeached, notwithstanding the fact that he also lied to Congress and to the American people after his affair with Monica Lewinski was exposed.

By: midderpidge

midderpidge — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:58:27 +0000

All other wrongdoing or question of criminal or unethical behavior aside, the bottom line that even wing nuts should realize is that the administration has abused the patriot act, not to fight terrorism, but to advance its own political agenda.

By: Jody

Jody — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:41:33 +0000

I do believe you’ve hit upon the crux of the problem, SpiderJ.

The cons simply don’t want to hold their own side to anything resembling the standard they held Clinton to. As Jay amply demonstrates for us.

By: SpiderJ

SpiderJ — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 17:31:02 +0000

Why was Clinton asked about his sexual affairs under oath?

And why can’t Rove and Miers be asked about a sketchy US attorney purge under the same conditions?

By: Jay Tea

Jay Tea — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:24:35 +0000

OK, note for future reference: in Oliver’s world, committing perjury in a federal matter is now acceptable as long as you can claim it was about “personal” matters. Never mind that under laws Clinton himself signed, his sexual conduct with other subordinates was perfectly admissible. The accused doesn’t even have to take a principled stand and refuse to answer; he is free to lie his ass off, even after raising his hand and swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help him God.

Gingrich (whom I happen to despise) also had an affair. But he was never asked about it under oath, and never lied about it under oath.

There’s a reason Bill Clinton was disbarred, and “hummers in the Oval Office” ain’t it.

By: Griff

Griff — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 00:07:24 +0000

You nailed it.

It’ll have to be played right by Dem leadership, but the way this is fleshing out it’s lose/lose for the GOP.

…all thanks to fearless leader Codpiece B. Obstinate, WPE.

By: Thad

Thad — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 00:07:06 +0000

…I think my favorite thing ever is Bush’s recent speech accusing the Democrats of trying to “provoke an unnecessary confrontation”.

President Bush. President George W Bush. Chastising someone for provoking. An unnecessary. Confrontation.

By: midderpidge

midderpidge — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 23:35:29 +0000

Right now, there is not a Democratic majority. It is tied.

By: Jody

Jody — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 23:13:50 +0000

“NO They tried to convict the president of perjuring himself before a federal judge…”

…over a consensual sexual affair. You know, a personal matter.

Which now, according to Newt Gingrich, should be considered off limits.

It’s amazing the degree these people will contort themselves to make their twisted worldview seem semi-sane.

By: z adura

z adura — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:57:08 +0000

Farris, thanks for the poll numbers. I consider myself among the disgruntled independents, but just as the pollers suggest, I am disappointed that Democrats still cannot force an Iraq redeployment plan. I can’t speak for everybody, but it certainly isn’t because of any real or perceived “overreach” by Democratic congressfolks.

By: SpiderJ

SpiderJ — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:23:19 +0000

Farris is right; I still feel wary of the Democratic Congress and I can understand the lowering opinion polls. Still, nothing a few subpoenas wouldn’t cure.

By: SaveFarris

SaveFarris — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 21:04:20 +0000

That excuse didn’t wash when Republicans governed without a supermajority and it won’t work now.

You won it. It’s yours. For better and worse.

By: Oliver Willis

Oliver Willis — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:58:49 +0000

Well it doesn’t help to have the Republicans limiting what Dems can do in the Senate. When we get 60 senators and a Democratic president I don’t expect a peep out of you.

By: SaveFarris

SaveFarris — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:42:49 +0000

Right now, only the last remaining 30 Percenters see overreach from the Democratic congress

Right now, only the last remaining 28 Percenters approve of the Democratic Congress.

By: pedromd07

pedromd07 — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:11:48 +0000

NO They tried to convict the president of perjuring himself before a federal judge…