Does anyone besides me feel that when Clinton was questioned about his sex life during his investigation was?

Question

an abuse of the legal system? And then, the only thing they could get him on, was that he lied to protect his marriage. I just don't think that line of questioning had anything to do with the investigation and feel that was a gross misuse of our justice system. I don't blame him for lying and I bet if you put 99% of the males (and females) up there to testify about infidelities, they would do the same thing. I don't care what you think about what he did w/ Lewinsky, do you honestly think those questions should be asked in a court of law when they were investigating a completely different thing all together?

Answer 1

Well the thing that all started the Clinton thing was the lawsuit complaint... the court decided that the president was allowed to be involved in a lawsuit while being president because a lawsuit wouldn't be too much of a distraction for the president. They pretty much said that yeah the president is busier and more important than us, but normal people go to work and handle a lawsuit at the same time, so it wouldn't be fair to postpone it so much.

And once they decided that, he had to testify about what happened. That whole thing wasn't political... that was just a ruling that a court case could go forward, naming the president as a party. The problem was the subject matter... no matter what Clinton did, he would look bad... he could testify that he did cheat on his wife, or he could settle and everyone would assume that he did cheat on his wife, or he could lie and risk someone finding out. Yes, I think a lot of people would lie. After that the issue became political... you had the moderate and right wingers yelling about how awful and immoral Clinton was and the impeachment hearings over whether we could have a president who lied under oath.

Personally, I don't think the court decision should have ever been made that allowed the president to be involved in a lawsuit at the same time as being a president... clearly that would have vast national reprocussions... and force the president to be more concerned with his private life than the country. I think common sense should have stopped the judges from ever allowing the testimony... and common sense should have told the people making the complaints that you might have to wait until the president is out of office before we allow a lawsuit.

And it's not just because I'm sticking up for Clinton... if there was any sort of civil lawsuit that didn't have anything to do with the presidency, I think it should have to wait until he's out of office... The most it could be is 8 years... maybe we could even allow depositions and stuff that stay sealed until the trial so that we didn't lose evidence and testimonies and stuff... going forward with the trial was just too much to require of a president.

Answer 2

Well, they weren't investigating something completely different all together. He was in court because someone was bringing him up on charges of sexual harrassment, and his "activities" with another woman....well in a position of power....has everything to do with what he was in court for. It was same activities..different woman...different political office he held. No - Lewinsky wasn't bringing him up on charges, but you can wonder if he would have a realationship with a woman like that....it's not too far of a stretch to believe the woman who brought him to court.

Here's an example: If someone is being brought up on charges for soliciting a prostitute, the lawyer could bring up activities involving other prostitutes, and ask them about those actvities. It's the same general idea here with Clinton.

I don't believe it was improper or a gross misuse of our justice system to ask him those questions.

Answer 3

I think he shouldn't have lied.... to save marriage or face.... but I do think it was blown out of proportion. Look at how many presidents were rumored or knowingly cheating on their spouses. Anyone is a subordinate to the President, lol. Isn't it funny that the most outspoken man against Clinton and his actions was having an affair at the time???? (Newt) I think that just shows that it wasn't about him having the affair... it was about the Republicans trying to bring him down anyway possible and Clinton was dumb enough to risk it all by having an affair.

I love the Clinton's!

Answer 4

The part of going into the intimate details of their personal lives with the Starr Report was an abuse; the only relevant part was his dishonesty because, as common as lying is in the world of politics, it's still wrong.

Answer 5

i don't think he should have lied but i agree his sex life didn't have anything to do with his leadership abilities,if people think that we have not been lied to since or before Clinton then they need to take off the rose colored glasses,i get a kick out the fact that bill Clinton was so bad to so many people but when bush needed someone to help boost peoples opinion that he (bush) was doing anything to help the people after Katrina who did he call to work with his father?that's right good ole immoral himself bill Clinton that because people in the real world not in Washington realize the difference in a good person and the fake persona that most politicians present on news clips.

Answer 6

He lied to the grand jury when he was under investigation for sexual harassment...so it was a relevant question because it shows a pattern...just like they do everyone who is accused of a crime...they try to show a pattern of mis conduct...just because he was the President, does not mean he is above the law...

Answer 7

Personally, yes I do think it was improper to question him on his personal life.

But, for someone (an elected official) having an affair with his subordinate, that also raises questions of undue influence and abuse of power, and it is proper to question him on whether the affair was truly consensual or whether it was implicity coercive.

That being said, it doesn't matter how many other people lie. An elected official (or an attorney) should not lie during a criminal investigation. Their oath prohibits that conduct. So, impeachment for lying in violation of their oath is appropriate.

Answer 8

You cannot compare the differences in infidelity between any ole' American, and the man in charge of the most powerful government in the world. He made an *** of himself, his wife, his family and America as a whole. I'm pretty sure that even on that one day, hundreds of thousands of people died around the world because of violence, war, neglect or hunger and as the one person in the world most capable of fixing those problems...he had his pants around his ankles.

Answer 9

Consensual sex between two adults is irrelevant in a sexual harassment case. I can see asking Lewinsky if she had coerced sexual activity with Clinton, and if the answer is 'no', it stops right there.

Why stop there? Why not ask the President of the United States of America if he gives it to the wife in her behind? Or if the wife uses a strap-on on him? Sodomy is still illegal in many states, right?

RIDICULOUS!

Answer 10

Hmm...let's see, lying to protect his marriage. I'm guessing he really didn't give a crap about that while he was getting his knob bobbed. If I ever found out my spouse lied about that it would be adios!!! It's all a question of character or lack thereof.