"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news%lsk.257419$TT4.108517@attbi_s22...
Cheating on Hillary was never the offense. Using the power of his
position to gain sexual favors from an employee *was*. Having sex was
never the offense, despite how desperately the Left has tried to make it
the salient point of the discussion.

You're kidding right? Do you honestly believe Clinton coerced the chubby
intern?

Sure do -- especially since the only other alternative is that she was
attracted to the old man.

Not only was she attracted to him, she was infatuated with him. Your
ignorance of the details is really showing.


Bottom line: Abusing power by coercing sex from/with an employee, during
business hours, on government property, is generally considered to be
illegal, as can be readily proven by the number of "public servants" who
are currently doing time right now for similar crimes. Therefore --
unless you're suggesting that we hold the president to a lower standard
than we do our mayors or high school principals -- I think the entire
framework of your argument is as specious as Clinton's claims that he "did
not have sex with that woman."

First of all, what you describe never happened. Lewinsky was never coerced.
If you believe she was, you should better educate yourself as you are taking
ignorance to a fine art form.

Next, even if Lewinsky WAS coerced (she wasn't), Clinton would only be
guilty of breaking civil statues, not criminal ones, and Lewinsky's recourse
would be to file an EEO charge (which can never even result in punitive
awards, much less criminal convictions). No such thing ever happened.
Offering or accepting a sexual favor from a coworker, even a subordinate, is
not even remotely illegal.


Lying under oath is perjury.

I thought I had already told you that you might want to better educate
yourself before you continue to demonstrate your ignorance.

So you're saying that lying under oath isn't perjury in such an instance?
Cite, please?

First, lying under oath alone doesn't fit the definition of perjury. If
you're going to try to argue whether or not anyone committed perjury, a good
place to start might be with the actual definition. You think?

Next, you simply assume Clinton DID lie under oath. No such thing has ever
been proven despite a monumental effort to do so. So perhaps you think you
can succeed when much more qualified people have failed, but I don't share
your optimism. The legal case against Clinton failed. The political case
against Clinton failed. The popular opinion case against Clinton failed.
Perhaps in your own mind you succeeded, but I doubt you had a high opinion
of Clinton to lose in the first place. Furthermore the price for those
failures was equivalent of wiping your arse with the US Constitution.
Congratulations.