>I did address the point.

Not until this message.

>And the only name reference has been "apologist" of which I retract and apologize for.

Thanks, Mark. :)

>And people want behaviour of the order of Clinton's?

No, they just don't think it's worth spending $40 million to investigate and God knows how much to prosecute.

>According to your logic, OJ should be in jail.

Well, of course OJ should be in jail! :) Judges have the power to throw out jury verdicts, and a lot of us think that one should've been thrown out. You don't agree??

>What the people need is a sense of trust in the judicial system and our leaders

That died with Watergate.

>This non-sense of "everyone of them does it" is a lame excuse for atrocious behaviour.

Yes, just as it was when the conservatives defended Nixon by using this exact same excuse (except that in that case, "everyone doing it" meant that every President was a dirty trickster). However, in this case, no one is excusing Clinton's lying--they're just saying that lying about one's private sex life isn't that big a deal. Not every crime has the same importance. Would you impeach Clinton for jaywalking? How about lying about jaywalking? :)

>>How could the White House leak Lewinsky's testimony?
>
>Clinton knew the truth.

This makes absolutely _no_ sense. Clinton would leak Lewinsky's statements about their affair? C'mon. :)

>Did you ever hear anyone truthfully report what Packwood did after the first each of the women told him to stop? No, because he stopped, and if they had objectively considered this, they would have had much less ammo to force him out. Harrassment is going beyond "NO".

Only if the advance is verbal. If it's physical, then it's harassment even if it stops at "no."

>Not true. These groups promote feminism/equal rights when it is convenient for them, which is wrong. I just don't respect an organization that selectively trashes Conservatives and lets the Liberals slide on the same indiscretions.

I see what you mean, but it's the nature of the game. Clinton represents an "in" for many liberal groups, so to attack him would be to reduce their power. That's just the way of the world.