Burnt Orange Report

He lied under oath? Sounds like perjury to me.

No doubt Kay Bailey Hutchison will rush to his defense with another "prosecutors mustn't confuse Republican perjury with regular perjury" statement.

And no doubt Barbara Radnofsky will call her to task again. Not realizing that quite a few remember how the managing partner of her law firm was called a liar on national television during the Enron hearings. By a US Congressman.

What a disgusting lot they all are. Some worse than others, perhaps, but disgusting nonetheless.

Clinton committs perjury and he's sought out as the Democrat's statesman and labeled as a future "President of the World" by the mainstream media. Tom Delay gets accused of perjury by Travis County Democratic Consultant Ronnie Earle, and the mainstream media hypes Earle's charge. Typical LibKook hypocrisy.

Get a history book and learn to read. Clinton was impeached by the House but not the Senate. The Republicans in the Senate thought keeping him in office would be the best campaign weapon they would have to ensure a Republican was elected in 2000. Although it really wasn't. But Clinton was still impeached. As was Andrew Johnson who like Clinton was impeached by the House but not the Senate. In both cases, the impeachment was a cloud left hanging by the Senate.

The Republicans seem to have a different standard of law for themselves. In essence, the law simply doesn't apply to them.

A lie is a lie is a lie, true,

But here on earth I have a hard time finding (refusing to tell the truth about something so highly personal, completely legal, (however ill-advised), as a bj, that could potentially affect his family life and his relationship with his wife)
The moral equivalent of lying about something that is( as public, completely illegal, having the potential of affecting the outcome of major elections and the foundations of the democracy that depends on the fairness of these elections as violations of state campaign finance laws.)

Money laundering is a crime when the MOB does it and it’s a crime when the GOP does it too. In my world, lying to cover up a crime is just not the same as lying about something that is nobody’s damn business anyway.

Actually, Baby Snooks, I followed the events on a daily basis in the Clinton perjury scandal. I watched both the House and Senate proceedings. But we're not talking about Congressional actions on perjury. You're comparing apples to oranges. We're talking about actual prosecution. But that never happened with Clinton. Doesn't matter what the perjury was about. Perjury is perjury. Yet, perjury never became so important to liberals until DeLay and his associates got accused of it.
And as far as digging on past crimes, where were the liberals when very few in the media covered Clinton's crimes relating to Whitewater, Rose Law Firm, the Mena drug running and money funneling, mysterious deaths (Sandy Hume, Vince Foster, the teenage boys on the railroad tracks in Mena), the rape of Juanita Brodderick, as well as many other scandals that would take all night to list?
All an educated person would have to do is refer to the Pew Research poll from the 1992 election: 89% for Clinton, 7% for Bush and 4% for Perot.

Another note: the Pew Research poll I just made reference to was a poll of how many in the mainstream media voted for Clinton (89%), Bush (7%) and Perot (4%).

"A lie is a lie is a lie..."

And that's the end of it. When you start making distinctions between one type of perjury and another, you are on a very dangerous precipice. As are others. Including Kay Bailey Hutchison.

The "crime" was not the sexual antics in the Oval Office. The "crime" was the misuse of the public office. Kennedy and reportedly LBJ had their little "dalliances" as well. They kept them out of the Oval Office. The White House is a large house so to speak. Lots of broom closets.

The whole thing was appalling. It was none of anyone's business at the end of the day. But nonetheless, he could have merely admitted having sex with her and left it at that. Instead he denied having sex with her. And then got into the semantics of the word sex. Which is what really opened up the Pandora's Box. I could have done without the details. I avoid men who smoke cigars now.

"And as far as digging on past crimes, where were the liberals when very few in the media covered Clinton's crimes relating to Whitewater, Rose Law Firm, the Mena drug running and money funneling, mysterious deaths (Sandy Hume, Vince Foster, the teenage boys on the railroad tracks in Mena), the rape of Juanita Brodderick, as well as many other scandals that would take all night to list?"

Same place the conservatives are as the very few in the media are covering Bush's crimes. Hiding in a corner. Hoping if they ignore it long enough it will simply go away.

Baby Snooks,
First of all, I'm not sure how we ever got to the point of deciding that having sex in the oval office is a crime, i'm pretty sure that is not written, the fact that it was personal ahhhm, buisness, is I suppose the argument. Does this mean it is a crime when any personal business is conducted in the office? Such as ok'ing your wife's party list, or helping your kids with their homework? While certainly less nefarious, these actions are no less personal and not a part of the job the office was built for.
The fact is, I'm not sure the gov. has the right to require a citizen to answer to allegations that are not criminal; therefore I have always had a problem with the fact that Clinton was required to answer this question one way or the other.
Furthermore, perjory is not the crime which Delay is accused of, It's money laundering and criminal conspiracy. If we can't separate that from lieing about a bj, then I give up. We really have sunk to a moral low when bj's and election fraud are moral and legal equivalents.

"Furthermore, perjory is not the crime which Delay is accused of..."

Not yet anyway. But you never know.

As for the blow jobs and the cigars, the Supreme Court ruled that the government should stay out of the bedroom. Not necessarily the office. Any office. Including the Oval Office. So Clinton and the rest of you who think your sexual needs are just something the secretary, or the intern, are supposed to "help" you with along with the "wife's party lists" should either find a broom closet or just install a bed in the office beside the desk so everyone knows what a patriarchal pig you really are. Get a room as they say. Or keep your pants zipped.

We hold, or used to, our public officials to higher standards. We expect them to be examples. What is having sex with a cigar an example of?

"What is having sex with a cigar an example of?"

Constitutionally Protected. vis a vis, the right to privacy. Since when is anyones sex life considered the buisness of the state, regardless of where they have it as long it is concentual?
As for whether or not he is a pig? Maybe, probably.

Frankly, I can not believe you are unable to draw a distinction between legal, (no matter how reprehensible) and illegal activity.

But once again, your mixing apples and cantelopes, because the last time I looked, being a pig was not a crime.

Undermining an election by means of money laundering and conspiracy to launder money in order to circumvent campaign finance laws however, is.

Both cases have to do with values and, more importantly, with ethics. The latter apparently doesn't mean much anymore in our society beyond providing a campaign platform for people who file ethics complaints. It used to be a foundation of our rule of law. The standards we lived by and the standards we set for others.

Yes and No,
They both have to do with values
but one has to do with personal values, a betrayal of ones family

the other has to do with public values and the law. a betrayal and a crime against, the public at large.

I'm not concerned about betrayals of other peoples trust, I can't be, it's not my buisness.

I am however concerned with betrayal of MY trust and crimes committed against me as a citizen of the state.

And no, this is not selfish, any crime committed whoever the specific victem, has also as it's victem the citizenry at large, this is why crimes are prosecuted by the state on behalf of the state.

Damon does make a great point though, Earle was called a name by the Delay defense and that should certainly give him the right to abuse his office. If there was any question of whether this prosecution was about partisanship, Earle's decision to appeal answered it. Did anyone actually read the bar that Priest set for a verdict?