If not, then would a person investigating Clinton be?
Both cases were about obstruction of justice, with perjury thrown in for Clinton.
:)
2007-03-08 23:32:50 · 8 answers · asked by American citizen and taxpayer 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
My question is simple. People have accused those of investigating Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice of being hypocrites because the investigators had affairs.
So, would someone who was investigating Nixon for obstruction of justice (no perjury in that case) be a hypocrite if THAT investigator was having an affair?
2007-03-08 23:44:12 · update #1
I'm not talking about a personal opinion regarding someone's marriage. I'm talking about a criminal investigation.
2007-03-08 23:49:42 · update #2
This is the newest political attack strategy in general. Everyone who has ever had an affair is suddenly somehow unworthy. They are attacking Giuliani on this basis and I even saw a story about Gingrich this morning. The Gingrich story just tells me that someone is worried he might decide to run for President, even though he is saying he will sit this one out so far. It is a backlash to the Clinton impeachment based on the fact that many people still cannot accept that Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction, not because he had an affair. They say the whole situation is silly, I say if it was so silly then why did he feel the need to lie. Take away the lie and the impeachment never happens. Having an affair constitutes a character flaw in my opinion, it may be a valid reason to choose not to vote for someone, but using it to attack everything that happens which you don't like is bound to produce a backlash at some point.
Edit: I just noticed I didn't answer the real question. The answer is no. Investigating a criminal offense just because you may not be necessarily moral does not make you a hypocrit. Obstructing justice then investigating someone else for the same crime would.
2007-03-08 23:54:55 · answer #1 · answered by Bryan 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. He would be doing an investigation on criminal activities committed by the president under investigation. Whitewater, wasn't about sex crimes, and nor was Watergate. Clinton was put on the stand to tell the truth about his illegal behavior in the Oval office, and he lied. That is a crime. He should have gone to prison. He is a criminal.
2007-03-09 07:42:01 · answer #2 · answered by xenypoo 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
The real issue is not who lied under oath or who didn't. The real issue is what was lied about, and whether we had any right to ask the question in the first place, what the original offense was, and who was harmed and in what way. There are big lies and insignificant lies, and it has nothing to do with oath or no oath. If I commit a major offense against the people of this country and I lie about it or cover it up, but not under oath, and another person lied under oath about a very personal private matter, that only harmed the people involved, and was in no way the concern of the American people, there is just no way that the lie under oath, is even close to being as immoral and serious as the first lie, about the Watergate scandal for example. There is no comparison between the two. It is the seriousness of the original offense itself, that counts, not whether you lied under oath or not.
What if I jaywalked and you robbed a bank, and we both lied about what we did. I only jaywalked, and I lied under oath, but you were not under oath when you lied about robbing a bank, are you really going to try to tell me that my offense is worse than yours, just because I lied under oath, and you lied without being under oath?????? If this makes sense to you, then there is no hope for you!!!!!
2007-03-09 08:48:52 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
What bothers me more,is why Clinton pardoned a man (Dem Congressman,Mel Reynolds) who went to jail for having sex with a 16 year old.
2007-03-09 07:39:50 · answer #4 · answered by bebe 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Gingrich went after Democrats to see them lose and would ues any method, no matter how nasty, to accomplish his goal. It is the height of hypocrisy for Newt to have gone after Clinton for having affairs. Newt's entire love life is about extra marital affairs. Newt is a beaut.
2007-03-09 07:38:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Can you elaborate on the history of this please....very curious to learn the facts your presenting.
2007-03-09 07:38:12 · answer #6 · answered by Charlooch 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No.
2007-03-09 07:47:25 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
???????? WHAT??????
2007-03-09 07:37:51 · answer #8 · answered by Boston Mark 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋