English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

The point is both of these men were very bad men who did many things that were wrong-------and in both cases not enough evidence was available to get them for the crimes we really wanted to get them for-----and in both cases government prosecutors had to settle for lesser offenses due to red tape....Who else can see the correlation here and scratch their heads in awe how Clinton can continue on like this without being behind bars?

2007-05-11 03:15:01 · 12 answers · asked by EZMZ 7 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

12 answers

The Libs don't think Bill was bad, they thought he was handsome. If Al Capone had his trial today, they would try to get him out, and forgive him, much like Paris Hilton.


The guy below me doesn't seem to know all the death's of human-beings, following in Bill Clinton's history. Do I have to name them again? Here you go!......I ask the guy now, Now do you see a correlation?

2007-05-11 03:35:04 · answer #1 · answered by xenypoo 7 · 2 3

Seems like lately it's impossible to be president without everyone thinking you are a crook that should be locked up. Maybe there should be two attorney generals--one to advise presidents about the nation's legal system, and another to keep the president out of hot water. (OK, I guess Bush I didn't require an investigation, but everyone else back to Reagan did, and I'm too young to remember if Carter was evil or just ineffective).

I think the republicans finally figured out that the way to sheild the President from most legal troubles is to never have him say anything. Most policies set by the oval office in Bush II's term are talked about by cabinet or other officials--since Bush never says anything himself, he can't get caught for perjury.

2007-05-11 10:26:48 · answer #2 · answered by wayfaroutthere 7 · 3 1

In all of American history, only two Administrations have had high ranking “White House” officials convicted of directing and committing felony crimes from inside the Oval Office – the Reagan and Bush, Jr. Administrations.

It seems that conservatives are more than just a little hypocritical in their respect for the rule of law and the Office of the President of the United States.

2007-05-11 10:32:48 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

"and in both cases not enough evidence was available to get them for the crimes we really wanted to get them for"

What are the "crimes we really wanted to get" Clinton for? Whitewater? No... turned out to be COMPLETELY false. Travelgate? Filegate? False. False. What's left? Sexually harassing whats-her-name? That's a civil action; not an impeachable "high Crime or Misdemeanor" as defined in the Constitution. Schtooping Monical Lewinsky? Once again, not a crime.

Al Capone was a gangster who had many people murdered, subverted the alcohol laws of the country, and was a criminal and a thug. What has Clinton done except reform welfare, bring peace to the middle east (right up until Bush shattered that), opened trade, and ensured that human rights would be protected?

2007-05-11 10:24:50 · answer #4 · answered by Perdendosi 7 · 5 2

Lets be clear... I'm not a Clinton fan but he was no Al Capone... Capone was put behind bars for tax evasion b/c thats the only thing the police could actually prove he'd done, even though everyone knew he was a murderer and a crook... Clinton lied under oath, which is bad, but its not "Al Capone, the most infamous, ruthless, murderous, organized crime boss ever" bad...

I'm afraid you are trying to compare apples to oranges...

2007-05-11 10:19:08 · answer #5 · answered by Ryan F 5 · 4 2

Comparing Clinton to Capone? You are really grasping for straws on this one. Take a look at our current administration and you could find about 30 impeachable offenses and you are still worried about Clinton. Why was his sex life on trial anyway? The irony in your question is astounding. Ya know, I wish Clinton had tried to use the Bush approach to senate interviews....sure you can do em, but they can't be under oath, and there can be no transcripts of what takes place. Wow, things would have been much easier that way. Or he should have just ordered the matters of b1ow-jobs to be classified, high-security information, then he just wouldn't have had to tell us anything at all.

2007-05-11 10:21:53 · answer #6 · answered by Meggerz 2 · 4 3

Comparing Al Capone with Bill Clinton is quite a stretch. The fact that they were both men is about the only comparison that is accurate. Obviously the non-existant source of your information does not bode well for your credibility. Your opinion is just that yours. You are entitled to have and express it even if it is totally ascenine.

2007-05-11 10:19:35 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4 2

I see no correlation what so ever.

Al Capone was a notorious gangster and murderer. He was convicted on the only thing they could prove.

Clinton got some head in the White House, which isn't a crime (If adulterous sex were cause for removal, we'd have lost at least half of our presidents, including Eisenhower, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson. Rumor has it htat there wasn't even marital sex during Nixon's administration, but that's another story) He lied under oath to congress, was impeached but not convicted.

The rest of the accusations against him were proven under extensive investigation, with the full weight and resources of the government behind that investigation, to be false.

The current administration has blatantly lied to the public about numerous matters, some of these lies have led to the death of Americans. They outed a covert CIA agent (1 conviction so far, more to come), they fired attorneys for not following the political agenda of the administration (violation of the Hatch act, investigation ongoing), coaching by administration officials of those slated to testify before congress (subornation of perjury, investigation just starting),
using government employyes to accomplish potitical goal (investigation just starting, violation of the hatch act) torture (violation of the Hague conventions, violation of the geneva convention), not to mention character assasination, violation of National security letter protocols, perjury before the congress by the attorney general.

I've been voting for 40 years, and in my experience, I have never seen an administration behave in such an arrogant fashion, with total disregard for the law, the constitution, and the will of the American people.

2007-05-11 11:38:21 · answer #8 · answered by Charlie S 6 · 2 4

Clinton does not deserve to be behind bars as long as that POS Bush is running loose for all of the crimes he has committed!

Bush makes Cllinton look like a Saint!

2007-05-11 10:26:41 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

Wow. Bush killed thousands of troops in an illegal war, and you want to jail Clinton for getting a bl0wj0b. You are a piece of work.

2007-05-11 10:18:14 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5 2

fedest.com, questions and answers