Yes he would have, however, I think that putting him in jail would have hurt our country more than justifiable.
----
and to be clear to some of the others above: He was not put under oath for the "crime of adultry". he was being investigated for sexual assault and misconduct. How many others being investigated for that would you dismiss as a small lie?
2007-03-06 15:57:14
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
Other countries were laughing at us for even bringing the issue up. Imagine how much they would have laughted at us for jailing a powerful man for that. Unfortunately there is a double standard for the wealthy and politicians. Martha Stewart virtually got her hands slapped for what most of us would have been put in the big house many times longer. She's rich so that's what happens.
2007-03-06 16:16:31
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
I would hope so! Sadly, there IS a double standard. Perhaps there would have been such an upheavel in our government had he gone to jail. Also , so many other politicians have been involved in sexual scandals he'd have lots of company. Our lawmakers make the laws to cover their own butts.
2007-03-06 16:07:59
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
If he hadn't been President, no one would have spent the 40 million dollars investigating him that was required to get him into a courtroom. Then the perjury wouldn't have happened.
So, I agree there is a double standard. I hope the Ken Starr standard is never applied to me.
2007-03-06 15:58:16
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
enable's get something right away here, Clinton replaced into not stumbled on liable for obstruction basically the lesser value of hiding the actuality from investigators. He replaced into impeached yet not stumbled on in charge as nicely. Nor replaced into Clinton stumbled on liable for something in Whitewater. . Libby is liable for obstructing a Federal examine right into a nationwide Intelligence leak. He lied interior the preliminary examine and he lied to the grand jury, then refused to testify in his very own protection. Why? because of fact he had already been informed by potential of Cheney that Bush does not enable him serve reformatory time as long as he saved quiet. The restoration replaced into in!
2016-10-17 11:13:36
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
If he were not the president he would not have been asked the questions that caused him to commit perjury in the first place!!! Hope This Helps:)
2007-03-06 16:05:09
·
answer #6
·
answered by patrick p 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
Possible, double-standards do exist in the courts. Fame, race, gender, money, even though the courts are suppose to be blind.
2007-03-06 16:01:26
·
answer #7
·
answered by PizzZak 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Yes. There is a double standard for LIBERAL politicians.
2007-03-06 16:37:40
·
answer #8
·
answered by yupchagee 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
NO. He didn't lie about the investigation into Whitewater. That was the focus of the investigation. His lie about Monica was not pertinant to the investigation. No one would have gone to jail for that.
2007-03-06 16:08:32
·
answer #9
·
answered by truth seeker 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Oh c'mon he only told a small lie!! It depends on your definition of the word "is" as I recall from Bill's testimony....It kind of reminded me of Rafeal Palmeiro before the congressional committee!!
He just took the R Kelly approach.....it wasn't me.......
2007-03-06 15:56:41
·
answer #10
·
answered by SantaBud 6
·
0⤊
1⤋