On Aug 24, 11:40 am, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
Um, even if it did I think I have enough sense not to base an entire 8
year presidency on that single act. I didn't really care that much when I
heard Gingrich cheated on and then dumped his hospitalized wife either,
other than the hypocrisy was interesting to note. So unlike some I apply
those standards equally.

I don't like any of that type of behavior. BUT, was Gingrich being
investigated in a sexual harassment charge? And, did Gingrich lie to
a grand jury?
And, did Gingrich conduct his dalliance on the floor of the Senate,
which some consider something akin to hallowed ground?


There was no perjury. Clinton was never convicted or even so much as
indicted for any such crime, or any other crime for that matter. If
you're not familiar with the facts of the situation, you should better
educate yourself before you comment.

Impeachment, which did occur, is a pretty good indictment.

Lying under oath is perjury.

Yes, it is. Even if you get away with it. He did, and he did,
mostly.

He would have gotten away cleanly, if the blue dress had been
laundered.

From Wikipedia (not always accurate, but generally a good starting
point):
"Upon the passage of H. Res. 611, Clinton was impeached on December
19, 1998, by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a
grand jury (by a 228-206 vote) and obstruction of justice (by a
221-212 vote). Two other articles of impeachment failed — a second
count of perjury in the Jones case (by a 205-229 vote) and one
accusing Clinton of abuse of power (by a 148-285 vote). Four
Republicans opposed all four articles, while five Democrats voted for
at least one of them. Upon passage of H. Res. 611, Clinton became the
first elected U.S. president and the second U.S. president to be
impeached..."

As I recall, after the impeachment, the Senate didn't feel strongly
enough to remove him from office. Hence the 45-55 outcome.

He didn't get impeached for his dalliances. He got impeached because
the investigations that started from a (presumably valid) sexual
harassment lawsuit wouldn't end, because more and more witnesses came
forward against him, and he lied (and otherwise evaded the truth) to a
grand jury after taking an oath. He was later found in contempt of
court, paid a fine, was removed from the Arkansas bar and chose to
resign from that bar.

The aftermath? Preteens and early teens don't think oral sex is sex,
and more people than ever think it's okay to lie if you really want
to.

If a society is to remain free (and it's always a struggle), the truth
has to be respected. If you, or I, or the president lies under oath,
there should be a swift and sure punishment. We've gotten away from
this--we're not after truth, but we are running a stage play. This
was brought home to me when I pursued a civil case. The defendants
had absolutely no leg to stand on, but I settled out of court because
their lies, wholly fabricated, would have been somewhat difficult to
prove as lies. At that point, going to the judge, who knows nothing
but what he hears, becomes a crapshoot. I got a small part of what
was owed me.

There is no doubt that much of the prosecution was politically
motivated. However, had he been less of a liar and miscreant, such
prosecution wouldn't have had much traction.

Now, what does all this have to do with piloting???