Text 33388, 94 rader
Skriven 2016-05-20 18:57:38 av Ross Cassell (1:123/789.0)
     Kommentar till en text av Richard Menedetter (2:310/31)
Ärende: Bashing US Dictators
============================
Richard Menedetter -> Ross Cassell explained on 5/20/2016 :

 RC>> As it pertains to the truth, he had given testimony in a civil suit he
 RC>> was the defendant in, regarding sexual harassment, this affair
 RC>> revealed his prior given court testimony (deposition) to have been a
 RC>> lie.

 RM> Here it is punishable to lie under oath.
 RM> I would assume it is similar in the US.
 ->> that is the way to go (legal system)

In this case, he lost his Arkansas law license and the privilege to argue cases
in front of the US Supreme Court.

 RM> But the hunt started long before that.
 RM> I remember shaking my head when this surfaced, back than there was no
 RM> testimony yet, but the witchhunt was on.

It is rather simple, he was being sued for sexual harassment, in his
deposition, he was asked if he had ever had relations with anyone other than
his wife, he answered no.

When this Lewinsky story broke, it exposed his testimony as a lie. He lied to
the court.

 RM>>> I guess again a case of "cultural differences".
 RM>>> And again I am quit happy to be on the "correct" side of the sea.
 RC>> Is telling a lie to a court of law permissible on the "correct side of
 RC>> the sea"?

 RM> No, and in my side of the sea we would let the legal system do its job.
 RM> We have courts for a reason.
 RM> If a court decides that he is guilty, than punish him.
 RM> If a court decides he is innocent, than he is innocent.

It is not illegal to have an affair or get a blowjob or insert a cigar into the
vagina.

It could have been illegal if the acts were performed in public and in sight of
the public, as indecent exposure, this did not happen.

It would have been illegal if Lewinsky was a minor, nope, she was 22.

Clinton was not prosecuted for having an affair..

As a matter of fact, had he said YES in his deposition, there would be no
perjury.

 RC>> But I am supposed to trust my elected leaders, as are you,

 RM> It is not about trust.
 RM> If somebody got elected, than he is elected.
 RM> If he does a crime, than steps need to be initiated to punish him.
 RM> (in this situation probably first a process to allow prosecution)

He was impeached by the House and the Senate did not convict him.

 RM> I would supervise the behaviour, and let it influence the decision I will
 RM> take in the next election. (ie not vote for a person, who had behaviour I
do
 RM> not agree with)

The POTUS is term limited to two terms, he was in his second term.

 RC>> if my elected leader cannot keep their promises to their spouses, how
 RC>> can I trust them to keep their promises to the people they are elected
 RC>> to represent or lead? On that note alone I am allowed to condemn the
 RC>> man for that, even if it is a matter of only being my opinion.

 RM> It is *YOUR* decision if you want to trust him.
 RM> When the next election comes up, you are free to vote for the candidate
you
 RM> trust the most.

But you said it is not about TRUST??

There really is no cultural difference here, what is different is your
understanding of what happened, I realize there might be a more permissive
mindset in your neck of the woods, but Clintons difficulties from a LEGAL
standpoint stemmed from his lack of truthfulness to a court of law, not where
he was sticking his dick or cigars.. LOL

But on the affair itself, technically it was improper, he was conductin the
encounters near or in the Oval Office. We the people didnt provide the POTUS
with executive offices to conduct his sex life in. Also a BOSS over EMPLOYEE
relationship is also considered improper, that if in the private sector would
lead to legal ramifications aside from employment jeopardy.

-- 
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its
shoes." - Mark Twain

--- MesNews/1.08.06.00-gb
 * Origin: Fidonet Via Newsreader - http://www.easternstar.info (1:123/789.0)