>>>You, like others, are not addressing the point I raised, which is why we should have spent a single thin dime to find out what we already knew?
>>
>>what, that he can't be trusted any further than we can throw him?
>
>With regard to his sex life, at least. Was this big news to everyone? As far as honesty goes, should we really _trust_ any politician??
>
>>he's still innocent til proven guilty, so we'd have to prove what we already know.
>
>First, Starr's report proves nothing. It's just evidence. The only way to prove anything is to impeach him first. And that won't happen. Congress will not impeach a popular president.

right -- and the report provides the evidence congress would use (if they can find their spines)