Wrapper

Lying under oath about sex is lying under oath about sex. Sorry if my
location was incorrect.


"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:T5idnWtjC-GGrWveUSdV9g@ptd.net...[color=blue]
> Yes re-write. That is what the Clinton supporters wanted you to believe,
> that is was only about sex in the ORAL office. It was the perjury in the
> Pauly Jones case. The impeachment had nothing to do with Lewinsky.
>
>
>
> mike hunt
>
>
> "Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:L6pJf.227$5M6.141@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...[color=green]
>> No re-write. As I quoted again for Scott, I wrote:
>>
>> "oval office sex and lying
>> about it"
>>
>> Maybe the problem with you right wingers is that you cannot read.
>>
>>
>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>> news:xO2cnSxNIdFXZ2jeUSdV9g@ptd.net...[color=darkred]
>>> Some folk are always trying to rewrite history. The impeachment of
>>> President Clinton, himself a lawyer, was not for having sex on the job,
>>> that charge was not part of the indictment. It was for the criminal
>>> offence of lying under oath to federal investigators. Perjury is a
>>> 'high crime' and certainly more than a 'misdemeanor' for which an
>>> elected official can be charged. The only 'politics' involves was those
>>> Senators that voted not to remove him from office, in spite of the
>>> evidence presented before them that he did in fact commit perjury and
>>> had belatedly admitted to the world on TV that he did in fact commit
>>> perjury.
>>>
>>>
>>> mike hunt
>>>
>>>
>>> "Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>> news:5jaJf.12691$Nv2.9336@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>> Dumb analysis. Everyone was pissed about Clinton oval office sex and
>>>> lying about it. The only division was whether it was worth impeaching
>>>> him over it. When people start talking about impeaching Cheney because
>>>> he shot the guy, than you might have something to bitch about.
>>>
>>>>>>Why should this be news----it doesn't impact his ability to run the
>>>>>>country? Isn't that the line we heard so many times after Monicagate?
>>>>>>BTW, this is a rhetorical question because someone was actually
>>>>>>physically injured, versus just being humiliated for life. I realize
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>difference, but I do seriously ask why we aren't supposed to care what
>>>>>>HillBilly does in the Oral Office while we are supposed to care what
>>>>>>Cheney does in a Texas field?
>>>>>
>>>>> Excellent....
>>>>>
>>>>> Would it be a double standard? <g>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Scott in Florida
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>[/color]
>>
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]