>>>>I assume you mean Newt? Why do you describe him as disgraced?
>>>
>>>PMFJI. I would not call him disgraced at all. But it was pretty hypocritical to seek Clinton's impeachment over an affair at the same time he himself was having an affair. Newt was still with wife #2 and carrying on with the woman who would become wife #3 (and remains the incumbent).
>>
>>PMFJIOYJI (on your jump in) ;)
>>
>>Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.
>>
>>Jumping back out...
>
>IMO that was a fig leaf.

Those who didn't think purjury and obstruction of justice were a "fig leaf" also include:

Five Democrats who voted to impeach - Virgil Goode, Ralph Hall, Paul McHale, Charles Stenholm, Gene Taylor
Arkansas Supreme Court's Committee on Professional Conduct - Suspended law license & $25k fines
The Supreme Court - Suspended and facing disbarrment Clinton chose to resign from the Supreme Court bar

>His enemies were determined to get him any way they could. Let's face it, Republicans are sore losers. Every Democratic President in recent memory has been faced with immediate hatred, denial, and obstruction. Which actually sounds like the name of a law firm....

Correction : Every President in recent memory has been faced with immediate hatred, denial, and obstruction.

From the clutz Ford, to the peanut farmer Carter, to that big dummy Reagan, and the wimp Bush Sr, on through Slick Willy and of course Bushitler.

>Also, I mention only in passing that the perjury and obstruction of justice charges stemmed from Ken Starr's "inquiry" into Clinton's dalliances with Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, and others. (Boy, he sure knew how to pick them, didn't he?) So it really all did revolve around the affairs.

It’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up