It was a BS charge and thus a BS crime. (Was there ever a criminal charge? Even a misdemeanor? Hmmm?) Yes, I know we have discussed this before.

As we have also discussed before, if I had been in Clinton's position I would not have lied or taken the 5th or been afflicted by convenient amnesia. I would have just told them right off the bat it's none of your business, so go stuff it. And then let's see how far they can push their tawdry little story.


>I am not comparing extramarital sex with a goofball intern. Funny how you keep trying to make that the crime (it is not one). I am comparing his crime of perjury.
>
>
>
>>>Really Mike, how could he not bring up Clinton? Based on your premise (as I understand it and you wrote):
>>>
>>>>No one expects a person to remember every detail of every conversation. It's only when they don't seem to remember anything about any potentially incriminating topic that you begin to think they are stonewalling.
>>>
>>>Clinton used the 'I don't recall' argument ad naseum during his investigations. Are we to assume you think everytime Clinton used that argument that he was intentionally misleading the investigators and was in fact, guilty? ... There is so much information out there on it that I won't bother posting any links. Also, there is no proof that evidence was destroyed YET.
>
>
>
>>>
>>>As you well know, I think Bush should have been impeached and it is beyond time for this administration to be put out on their petooters :o) However, I am almost daily amazed at the hyprocrisy of the left when it comes to the current administration. Sheesh.
>>
>>
>>Maybe I do not recognize my own hypocrisy but I think there is a big difference between having extramarital sex (however defined) with a goofball intern and destroying evidence in a Congressional investigation. I stress that we do not yet know evidence was destroyed; it just looks like it was.
>>
>>PS - Isn't the word patooties? Do men have patooties and women patooters? (running away fast)