On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 03:14:26 +0900, Michael Cash
<mikecash@buggerallspammers.com> wrote:

>>I think you're reaching/wriggling now, Mike. Clinton was impeached on
>>grounds of perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power. Yes,
>>the House of Representatives impeached him but he WAS acquitted in the
>>same impeachment proceedings in the Senate impeachment hearings. We
>>are not talking about separate cases.

>"...some of Clinton's most vicious proponents for impeachment from the
>Republican Party were adulterous a-holes like the loudmouth, Bob Barr
>of Georgia. That hypocrisy is what sickens me the most about the
>Republicans."

>Which can leave one with the impression that you thought Clinton was
>impeached for adultery. And your current post makes it appear as
>though you do indeed think that the Senate acquittal wipes out the
>impeachment itself. (See Article I, Section 2, Clause 5).

>And if he was *not* impeached on grounds of adultery, then the
>adultery of those who impeached him, while morally reprehensible,
>doesn't constitute hypocrisy.

Clinton may have perjured himself when he was brought up on charges of
having sexual relations with a white house intern. Some of those
leading the charge were equally guilty of such infidelities themselves
(Mr. Barr).

While I deeply regret that Clinton did his verbal dance under oath I
regret even more that he endured any witch hunt at all. His sex life
is his own business and it had nothing to do with his ability to act
as President. It was an opportunity for his hypocritical opponents to
run him out to dry and they went right for it but came up short.

Raj