Loads will say we don't care if Clinton had an affair with Lewinsky, well he did more than that, he was asked under Oath if he did it or not.
He lied under Oath saying he didn't do it.
Did you know lying under Oath is a crime? it's called perjury and it doesn't matter what you lied about, the fact is if a regular person like you and me lied under Oath, we would be convicted felons, even Mark Furhman is a convicted felon for deying under Oath that he had ever addressed someone as the N word.
But oh Bill Clinton is so holy I guess that he can't be held to the same standard as Mark Furhman was held to.
2007-07-15 07:04:06 · 19 answers · asked by MrCool1978 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Thank you deshon b for adding to my point, a lot seem to have not paid attention to the words "lied under OATH"
And so far Bush has not lied under OATH about anything as he has not been asked to testify under OATH.
Republican Bob Livingston resigned from House Speaker when he confessed to an affair but that did not cancel the Clinton Impeachment trial because Bob was never even asked under OATH if he did the deed (Clinton was asked under OATH and denied).
No one ever even asked Livingstone if he did it, he flat out decided to confess and resign.
And yes when you lie under Oath, I don't care what your political party is, you should be held as accountable as Mark Furhman was held.
2007-07-15 10:38:28 · update #1
i have read each comment and its clear that many of you have missed the point, the point is he lied "UNDER OATH" period. whether it was his personal private life is irrelevant the point is he lied under under oath perjury is perjury any of us would have been punished for perjury. i dont care if you are conservative or liberal the point is, one more time, he lied under oath simple.
2007-07-15 09:32:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Bill Clinton lied and was held accountable. GW has lied time and time again, just not under oath, and his lies have had much more serious consquences. Lying about a BJ was wrong but the only harm done was to Clinton political future and his personal standing.
2007-07-15 07:52:48 · answer #2 · answered by ndmagicman 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Clinton lied about a extra-marital sex act so his wife won't find out. This is something that practically any man would do. Since this question has a political bent, there have been many, many conservatives and Republicans who have done the same thing. If this question keeps coming up, someone (not me) is bound to ask, "which cost more- Clinton lying about oral sex or Bush lying about WMD's?"
We should move on. All politicians are the same.
2007-07-15 07:38:21 · answer #3 · answered by shacker2762 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
It seems that way sometimes, however they are not all the same. I believe that the President's personal life is a matter for the public to be concerned about. If you will cheat on your wife, you sure wouldn't give a damn about the American people. Bill Clinton was the laughing stock of America. How could you let the wife of Bill Clinton who sits back and takes all this man dishes out be President. If she takes all his crap would she not take the crap from other countries as well. I say we have to take a stand to prevent this from ever happening, although I really don't think she has a chance in hell.
2007-07-15 07:28:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Cheesh....now you're expanding your hate for Bill Clinton to compare him to Mark Furhman! Sure President Clinton made a mistake and paid dearly for it. President Bush has made dozens of mistakes and he will also pay for it. Historians are not concerned with anything but the results of his decisions. It should be pretty interesting reading!
2007-07-15 07:37:43 · answer #5 · answered by ArRo 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Both Clinton's have lied under oath, Bill pardoned the 6 FAFLN Terrorists, got troops killed in Somalia and then Bosnia, and that is alright in the liberal play book.
The average person lets these things slip in their memories, but hey, they wanted to hang Libby for not being truth-full during interrogation, but Bill and Hillary its OK.
In the criminal justice system, its the same, look at Paris Hilton and her treatment. Me or you would not have gotten that treatment, but she did because of who she is and how much money she has.
2007-07-15 07:20:26 · answer #6 · answered by bigmikejones 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I don't know a single democrat that thinks Bill Clinton having with Lewinski was a good thing. And I don't know a single democrat that thinks that his lying about it was a good thing. Both were bad.
But we do realize that lying about sex is different than lying about national security and making false statement to get the US to engage in a war that has allienated us and cost thousands of lives.
2007-07-15 07:54:05 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Clinton lied about getting a b-job. He shouldn't have been asked in the first place. Republicans just needed to get him for something so they took what they could.
Scooter Libby lied about leaking the name of a U.S. spy. He gets out of jail free cause he is Bush's buddy.
B-job... Outing a spy.... Which would you rather have someone lie about?
2007-07-15 08:07:28 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It was wrong that he lied and he should not have done so. But at the same time, that question should have never been asked and if any other man (or woman for that matter) were put in that position the majority would lie too.
Clinton is not a holy figure by any means but I feel that there were far worse things to attack him against than his personal life. It was a matter that should have remained private.
2007-07-15 07:09:45 · answer #9 · answered by Legally Brunette 3 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Stop flogging a dead horse!
Clinton lied, he paid the price, and Democrats accept that.
What may surprise you (or dismay you) is that even during the impeachment hearings, his popularity ratings were around 70%.
Get on with your life, for God's sake!
2007-07-15 07:56:26 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋