Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't think anyone wants to rehash this debate, but:
1. I think materiality should be judged in connection with the case that procurred the lie. If my memory serves me, the case was thrown out after he lied under oath. Query whether the same result would have been reached had he told the truth.
2. I understand why he lied - it's very human in that situtation. But I also think it is really, really wrong - especially to the plaintiff. Whether he should have been thrown out of office, in hindsite, I don't know. But I think the impeachment was appropriate to at least slap the wrist and give faith in our system that no one is above the law.
|
1. The Judge in the Jones case held a big-assed investigation and hearing, and issued an opinion on precisely this point. She determined that the lie did not affect the outcome of the case (which doesn't dispose of the "materiality" issue).
2. You know this was pressed just because he was a Democrat who inspire exceptional dislike, even hatred, in many key Republicans. Was it worth crippling our government for 3 years?
P.S. Clinton's approval ratings after the impeachment, and upon leaving office, are a whole shit-load higher than Bush's are now. So what do you think the "common man" would say?
S_A_M
