OT: Senator admitted trying cocaine in memoir written 11 years ago

On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 18:44:54 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Religion has NOTHING to do with it! Abuse of power, misleading the
>> constiuancy, and lying to a grand jury were the culprits. Lying to the
>> public didn't help. (I was home that day..."I did not have sexual
>> relations with that woman........Ms. Lewinsky") Like Limbaugh said at
>> the time, he wasn't telling US he didn't have relations with Lewinsky,
>> he was telling Lewinsky he wasn't having sex with his wife! (Ok, that's
>> a stretch)
>>
>> Yes, we've been lied to before. Have you forgotten about the others? I
>> thought not. But, they didn't lie to a Grand Jury, either. Nixon never
>> got the chance.
>>
>>
>>[/color]
>
> He was dragged to the grand jury because of a sexual incident. It is that
> sexual incident which was focused on by fake religious people, some of
> whom shut their faces very quickly when *they* were exposed for doing
> similar things. Remember Newt Gingrich? He got real quiet, real quick. It
> was as if his vocal chords had been ripped out.
>
> Now, once again: If the American people had known the price tag, and if
> this was literally a democracy, do you think the country would've agreed
> to wasting all that money?[/color]


OK, then I guess he just should have resigned. You're right.

"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote in message
news:Rmxnh.26$1h.4@trndny09...[color=blue]
> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 18:44:54 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Religion has NOTHING to do with it! Abuse of power, misleading the
>>> constiuancy, and lying to a grand jury were the culprits. Lying to the
>>> public didn't help. (I was home that day..."I did not have sexual
>>> relations with that woman........Ms. Lewinsky") Like Limbaugh said at
>>> the time, he wasn't telling US he didn't have relations with Lewinsky,
>>> he was telling Lewinsky he wasn't having sex with his wife! (Ok, that's
>>> a stretch)
>>>
>>> Yes, we've been lied to before. Have you forgotten about the others? I
>>> thought not. But, they didn't lie to a Grand Jury, either. Nixon never
>>> got the chance.
>>>
>>>
>>>[/color]
>>
>> He was dragged to the grand jury because of a sexual incident. It is that
>> sexual incident which was focused on by fake religious people, some of
>> whom shut their faces very quickly when *they* were exposed for doing
>> similar things. Remember Newt Gingrich? He got real quiet, real quick. It
>> was as if his vocal chords had been ripped out.
>>
>> Now, once again: If the American people had known the price tag, and if
>> this was literally a democracy, do you think the country would've agreed
>> to wasting all that money?[/color]
>
>
> OK, then I guess he just should have resigned. You're right.
>[/color]

I must've asked you the perfect question, because you are refusing to answer
it. This happens a lot around here.

On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 19:10:46 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote in message
> news:Rmxnh.26$1h.4@trndny09...[color=green]
>> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 18:44:54 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>> Religion has NOTHING to do with it! Abuse of power, misleading the
>>>> constiuancy, and lying to a grand jury were the culprits. Lying to the
>>>> public didn't help. (I was home that day..."I did not have sexual
>>>> relations with that woman........Ms. Lewinsky") Like Limbaugh said at
>>>> the time, he wasn't telling US he didn't have relations with Lewinsky,
>>>> he was telling Lewinsky he wasn't having sex with his wife! (Ok,
>>>> that's a stretch)
>>>>
>>>> Yes, we've been lied to before. Have you forgotten about the others? I
>>>> thought not. But, they didn't lie to a Grand Jury, either. Nixon never
>>>> got the chance.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> He was dragged to the grand jury because of a sexual incident. It is
>>> that sexual incident which was focused on by fake religious people,
>>> some of whom shut their faces very quickly when *they* were exposed for
>>> doing similar things. Remember Newt Gingrich? He got real quiet, real
>>> quick. It was as if his vocal chords had been ripped out.
>>>
>>> Now, once again: If the American people had known the price tag, and if
>>> this was literally a democracy, do you think the country would've
>>> agreed to wasting all that money?[/color]
>>
>>
>> OK, then I guess he just should have resigned. You're right.
>>
>>[/color]
> I must've asked you the perfect question, because you are refusing to
> answer it. This happens a lot around here.[/color]


And I answered it. All of that could have been avoided if he'd been a Big
Boy and resigned. HE put the country through it. If he had resigned,
nothing would have been spent. Quite simple, really. And 'literally a
Deomcracy'? I consider England a better Democracy than the US. If such a
situation arises, the PM can call a General Election. Tony Blair did it
when his leadership came into question, and he was re-elected hands down.
It has happened in Canada, too. If this were a REAL Democracy, Billy Boy
could have called for a General Election and had his ass handed to him.

"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote in message
news:ByAnh.257$us1.225@trndny04...[color=blue]
> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 19:10:46 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>[color=green]
>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote in message
>> news:Rmxnh.26$1h.4@trndny09...[color=darkred]
>>> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 18:44:54 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Religion has NOTHING to do with it! Abuse of power, misleading the
>>>>> constiuancy, and lying to a grand jury were the culprits. Lying to the
>>>>> public didn't help. (I was home that day..."I did not have sexual
>>>>> relations with that woman........Ms. Lewinsky") Like Limbaugh said at
>>>>> the time, he wasn't telling US he didn't have relations with Lewinsky,
>>>>> he was telling Lewinsky he wasn't having sex with his wife! (Ok,
>>>>> that's a stretch)
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, we've been lied to before. Have you forgotten about the others? I
>>>>> thought not. But, they didn't lie to a Grand Jury, either. Nixon never
>>>>> got the chance.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> He was dragged to the grand jury because of a sexual incident. It is
>>>> that sexual incident which was focused on by fake religious people,
>>>> some of whom shut their faces very quickly when *they* were exposed for
>>>> doing similar things. Remember Newt Gingrich? He got real quiet, real
>>>> quick. It was as if his vocal chords had been ripped out.
>>>>
>>>> Now, once again: If the American people had known the price tag, and if
>>>> this was literally a democracy, do you think the country would've
>>>> agreed to wasting all that money?
>>>
>>>
>>> OK, then I guess he just should have resigned. You're right.
>>>
>>>[/color]
>> I must've asked you the perfect question, because you are refusing to
>> answer it. This happens a lot around here.[/color]
>
>
> And I answered it. All of that could have been avoided if he'd been a Big
> Boy and resigned. HE put the country through it. If he had resigned,
> nothing would have been spent. Quite simple, really. And 'literally a
> Deomcracy'? I consider England a better Democracy than the US. If such a
> situation arises, the PM can call a General Election. Tony Blair did it
> when his leadership came into question, and he was re-elected hands down.
> It has happened in Canada, too. If this were a REAL Democracy, Billy Boy
> could have called for a General Election and had his ass handed to him.
>
>[/color]


Actually, you only JUST answered the question: You think he'd have had his
head handed to him. But, two things:

- Polls afterward indicated he still had support, and quite a bit of it,
which suggests that the public didn't agree with what the fake Christians
did to him. This means that even though he lied to the grand jury, the
public thought he never should have been questioned about what he does with
his private time.

- As long as you're not breaking the law (having sex with minors, a
Republican hobby), your sex life is none of anyone's business.

- As for the stupid argument (put forth in this newsgroup) that he was
getting a blowjob while on the job, paid with our taxes, that is nonsense.
All presidents do things not connected with the job. They play golf, go
fishing, have sex, read books (other presidents).

"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote in message
news:ByAnh.257$us1.225@trndny04...[color=blue]
> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 19:10:46 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>[color=green]
>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote in message
>> news:Rmxnh.26$1h.4@trndny09...[color=darkred]
>>> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 18:44:54 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Religion has NOTHING to do with it! Abuse of power, misleading the
>>>>> constiuancy, and lying to a grand jury were the culprits. Lying to the
>>>>> public didn't help. (I was home that day..."I did not have sexual
>>>>> relations with that woman........Ms. Lewinsky") Like Limbaugh said at
>>>>> the time, he wasn't telling US he didn't have relations with Lewinsky,
>>>>> he was telling Lewinsky he wasn't having sex with his wife! (Ok,
>>>>> that's a stretch)
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, we've been lied to before. Have you forgotten about the others? I
>>>>> thought not. But, they didn't lie to a Grand Jury, either. Nixon never
>>>>> got the chance.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> He was dragged to the grand jury because of a sexual incident. It is
>>>> that sexual incident which was focused on by fake religious people,
>>>> some of whom shut their faces very quickly when *they* were exposed for
>>>> doing similar things. Remember Newt Gingrich? He got real quiet, real
>>>> quick. It was as if his vocal chords had been ripped out.
>>>>
>>>> Now, once again: If the American people had known the price tag, and if
>>>> this was literally a democracy, do you think the country would've
>>>> agreed to wasting all that money?
>>>
>>>
>>> OK, then I guess he just should have resigned. You're right.
>>>
>>>[/color]
>> I must've asked you the perfect question, because you are refusing to
>> answer it. This happens a lot around here.[/color]
>
>
> And I answered it. All of that could have been avoided if he'd been a Big
> Boy and resigned. HE put the country through it. If he had resigned,
> nothing would have been spent. Quite simple, really. And 'literally a
> Deomcracy'? I consider England a better Democracy than the US. If such a
> situation arises, the PM can call a General Election. Tony Blair did it
> when his leadership came into question, and he was re-elected hands down.
> It has happened in Canada, too. If this were a REAL Democracy, Billy Boy
> could have called for a General Election and had his ass handed to him.
>
>[/color]

JoeNoBedroom doesn't wsnt to live in a democracy. Maybe since he wants to
live in a state where the Left controls everything, we ought to send him to
Cuba. Or just let Nancy Pussilosi (D-Left Coast) have her way, but then I'd
have to leave the country.

Charles of Schaumburg.

"n5hsr" <n5hsr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kvWdnacqM6noIwLYnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d@comcast.com...[color=blue]
> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote in message
> news:ByAnh.257$us1.225@trndny04...[color=green]
>> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 19:10:46 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote in message
>>> news:Rmxnh.26$1h.4@trndny09...
>>>> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 18:44:54 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Religion has NOTHING to do with it! Abuse of power, misleading the
>>>>>> constiuancy, and lying to a grand jury were the culprits. Lying to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> public didn't help. (I was home that day..."I did not have sexual
>>>>>> relations with that woman........Ms. Lewinsky") Like Limbaugh said at
>>>>>> the time, he wasn't telling US he didn't have relations with
>>>>>> Lewinsky,
>>>>>> he was telling Lewinsky he wasn't having sex with his wife! (Ok,
>>>>>> that's a stretch)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, we've been lied to before. Have you forgotten about the others?
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> thought not. But, they didn't lie to a Grand Jury, either. Nixon
>>>>>> never
>>>>>> got the chance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> He was dragged to the grand jury because of a sexual incident. It is
>>>>> that sexual incident which was focused on by fake religious people,
>>>>> some of whom shut their faces very quickly when *they* were exposed
>>>>> for
>>>>> doing similar things. Remember Newt Gingrich? He got real quiet, real
>>>>> quick. It was as if his vocal chords had been ripped out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, once again: If the American people had known the price tag, and
>>>>> if
>>>>> this was literally a democracy, do you think the country would've
>>>>> agreed to wasting all that money?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OK, then I guess he just should have resigned. You're right.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I must've asked you the perfect question, because you are refusing to
>>> answer it. This happens a lot around here.[/color]
>>
>>
>> And I answered it. All of that could have been avoided if he'd been a Big
>> Boy and resigned. HE put the country through it. If he had resigned,
>> nothing would have been spent. Quite simple, really. And 'literally a
>> Deomcracy'? I consider England a better Democracy than the US. If such a
>> situation arises, the PM can call a General Election. Tony Blair did it
>> when his leadership came into question, and he was re-elected hands down.
>> It has happened in Canada, too. If this were a REAL Democracy, Billy Boy
>> could have called for a General Election and had his ass handed to him.
>>
>>[/color]
>
> JoeNoBedroom doesn't wsnt to live in a democracy. Maybe since he wants to
> live in a state where the Left controls everything, we ought to send him
> to Cuba. Or just let Nancy Pussilosi (D-Left Coast) have her way, but
> then I'd have to leave the country.[/color]


That response makes absolutely NO sense. You know that.

Hachiroku ãƒ?ãƒ?ãƒ*ク wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 04:32:47 -0600, dbu, wrote:
>[color=green]
> > [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16443180/[/url][/color]
>
> Well, if he tried it in his memoir, what's the problem?
>
> Good thing he didn't really try it![/color]

That's because, typical of DemonRAT LIEberal cowards, Barack Obama cut
and run from the cocaine and didn't stay the course with it the way
True Patriot George W. Bush did.

Hachiroku ãƒ?ãƒ?ãƒ*ク wrote:[color=blue]
> On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 20:42:13 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>[color=green]
> > What I'm getting at is that *all* people are selective in their views
> > toward mind-altering substances. They'll crab all day long about pot
> > because they imagine that it's used only by a type of person they don't
> > approve of. These same people will say nothing about a bunch of senators
> > leaving a cocktail party with three sheets to the wind. Oh...wait: If it's
> > Ted Kennedy, the cocktails are a problem. If it's George Bush, it's not.[/color]
>
> No, dunking your Delmont 88 with a femaile aide and then 'forgetting'
> about it for 24 hours is a crime.[/color]

What do you think of Barbara Bush driving a Plymouth Fury, rammed into
a Corvair, and killing its driver?

Or how about a drunk Dick Cheney shooting his friend in the face and
refusing a sobriety test?

Ted, Barb, and Dick all appear in the newest American Express
commercial - "Priviledge has its benefits".

"larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1168191354.360633.109280@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

[color=blue]
> Or how about a drunk Dick Cheney shooting his friend in the face and
> refusing a sobriety test?[/color]

Hey...this raises a question. Cheney is allowed to go hunting while he is
vice president. Clinton is not allowed to have sex while he is president.
Isn't this a double standard?

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 14:43:05 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote in message
> news:ByAnh.257$us1.225@trndny04...[color=green]
>> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 19:10:46 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote in message
>>> news:Rmxnh.26$1h.4@trndny09...
>>>> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 18:44:54 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Religion has NOTHING to do with it! Abuse of power, misleading the
>>>>>> constiuancy, and lying to a grand jury were the culprits. Lying to the
>>>>>> public didn't help. (I was home that day..."I did not have sexual
>>>>>> relations with that woman........Ms. Lewinsky") Like Limbaugh said at
>>>>>> the time, he wasn't telling US he didn't have relations with Lewinsky,
>>>>>> he was telling Lewinsky he wasn't having sex with his wife! (Ok,
>>>>>> that's a stretch)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, we've been lied to before. Have you forgotten about the others? I
>>>>>> thought not. But, they didn't lie to a Grand Jury, either. Nixon never
>>>>>> got the chance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> He was dragged to the grand jury because of a sexual incident. It is
>>>>> that sexual incident which was focused on by fake religious people,
>>>>> some of whom shut their faces very quickly when *they* were exposed for
>>>>> doing similar things. Remember Newt Gingrich? He got real quiet, real
>>>>> quick. It was as if his vocal chords had been ripped out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, once again: If the American people had known the price tag, and if
>>>>> this was literally a democracy, do you think the country would've
>>>>> agreed to wasting all that money?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OK, then I guess he just should have resigned. You're right.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I must've asked you the perfect question, because you are refusing to
>>> answer it. This happens a lot around here.[/color]
>>
>>
>> And I answered it. All of that could have been avoided if he'd been a Big
>> Boy and resigned. HE put the country through it. If he had resigned,
>> nothing would have been spent. Quite simple, really. And 'literally a
>> Deomcracy'? I consider England a better Democracy than the US. If such a
>> situation arises, the PM can call a General Election. Tony Blair did it
>> when his leadership came into question, and he was re-elected hands down.
>> It has happened in Canada, too. If this were a REAL Democracy, Billy Boy
>> could have called for a General Election and had his ass handed to him.
>>
>>[/color]
>
>
> Actually, you only JUST answered the question: You think he'd have had his
> head handed to him. But, two things:
>
> - Polls afterward indicated he still had support, and quite a bit of it,
> which suggests that the public didn't agree with what the fake Christians
> did to him. This means that even though he lied to the grand jury, the
> public thought he never should have been questioned about what he does with
> his private time.
>
> - As long as you're not breaking the law (having sex with minors, a
> Republican hobby), your sex life is none of anyone's business.
>
> - As for the stupid argument (put forth in this newsgroup) that he was
> getting a blowjob while on the job, paid with our taxes, that is nonsense.
> All presidents do things not connected with the job. They play golf, go
> fishing, have sex, read books (other presidents).[/color]


What really gets me is, he said he doesn't think he was having
sex...remember: "...depends on what your definition of "is" is..."


So here, let me put this forth to you: let's say you have a 14 year old
daughter, and you come home to find she's blowing the 35 year old guy from
next door in your living room. According to your (and Clinton's)
argument, you have no right to be upset with her, OR your neighbor,
because they aren't actually having sex.


Right?

$100 says you'd try to castrate your neighbor and prove me wrong, also
proving Clinton wrong.

If what you believe to be true, was actually true, how could anybody know if
the VP was drunk or not. LOL



mike



"larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1168191354.360633.109280@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Or how about a drunk Dick Cheney shooting his friend in the face and
refusing a sobriety test?

"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.01.08.23.39.40.876671@ae86.gts...
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Actually, you only JUST answered the question: You think he'd have had
>> his
>> head handed to him. But, two things:
>>
>> - Polls afterward indicated he still had support, and quite a bit of it,
>> which suggests that the public didn't agree with what the fake Christians
>> did to him. This means that even though he lied to the grand jury, the
>> public thought he never should have been questioned about what he does
>> with
>> his private time.
>>
>> - As long as you're not breaking the law (having sex with minors, a
>> Republican hobby), your sex life is none of anyone's business.
>>
>> - As for the stupid argument (put forth in this newsgroup) that he was
>> getting a blowjob while on the job, paid with our taxes, that is
>> nonsense.
>> All presidents do things not connected with the job. They play golf, go
>> fishing, have sex, read books (other presidents).[/color]
>
>
> What really gets me is, he said he doesn't think he was having
> sex...remember: "...depends on what your definition of "is" is..."
>
>
> So here, let me put this forth to you: let's say you have a 14 year old
> daughter, and you come home to find she's blowing the 35 year old guy from
> next door in your living room. According to your (and Clinton's)
> argument, you have no right to be upset with her, OR your neighbor,
> because they aren't actually having sex.
>
>
> Right?
>
> $100 says you'd try to castrate your neighbor and prove me wrong, also
> proving Clinton wrong.[/color]


That's different. The 14 year old is a minor. I thought you knew this.
Monica Lewinsky was not a minor.

But, this doesn't matter. Go back in the time line. (Do you know what a time
line is?) Why did *anyone* ask Clinton about this episode with Lewinsky?
Before you answer, try and remember that this came before the grand jury.

Again: Why did *anyone* ask Clinton about this episode with Lewinsky?

Again: Why did *anyone* ask Clinton about this episode with Lewinsky?

Again: Why did *anyone* ask Clinton about this episode with Lewinsky?

Again: Why did *anyone* ask Clinton about this episode with Lewinsky?

Again: Why did *anyone* ask Clinton about this episode with Lewinsky?


Got that question straight?

Why did *anyone* ask Clinton about this episode with Lewinsky?

In article <fcKcndYZJZehRz_YUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> If what you believe to be true, was actually true, how could anybody know if
> the VP was drunk or not. LOL
>
>
>
> mike[/color]

larry moe's eyes are rolling way back behind his eyelids, in deep
hallucination, under the influence of a mind altering substance.




[color=blue]
>
>
>
> "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:1168191354.360633.109280@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Or how about a drunk Dick Cheney shooting his friend in the face and
> refusing a sobriety test?[/color]
--

JoeSpareBedroom, 1/8/2007,7:08:22 PM, wrote:
[color=blue]
> Why did anyone ask Clinton about this episode with Lewinsky? Before
> you answer, try and remember that this came before the grand jury.
>
> Again: Why did anyone ask Clinton about this episode with Lewinsky?
>
> Again: Why did anyone ask Clinton about this episode with Lewinsky?
>
> Again: Why did anyone ask Clinton about this episode with Lewinsky?
>
> Again: Why did anyone ask Clinton about this episode with Lewinsky?
>
> Again: Why did anyone ask Clinton about this episode with Lewinsky?
>
>
> Got that question straight?
>
> Why did anyone ask Clinton about this episode with Lewinsky?[/color]



Interrogation time again by Gestapo Joe.

"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0f0z3o762xn5004@news.readfreenews.net...[color=blue]
> JoeSpareBedroom, 1/8/2007,7:08:22 PM, wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Why did anyone ask Clinton about this episode with Lewinsky? Before
>> you answer, try and remember that this came before the grand jury.
>>
>> Again: Why did anyone ask Clinton about this episode with Lewinsky?
>>
>> Again: Why did anyone ask Clinton about this episode with Lewinsky?
>>
>> Again: Why did anyone ask Clinton about this episode with Lewinsky?
>>
>> Again: Why did anyone ask Clinton about this episode with Lewinsky?
>>
>> Again: Why did anyone ask Clinton about this episode with Lewinsky?
>>
>>
>> Got that question straight?
>>
>> Why did anyone ask Clinton about this episode with Lewinsky?[/color]
>
>
>
> Interrogation time again by Gestapo Joe.[/color]


You can't answer the question, can you? Silly gerbil.

Why did anyone ask Clinton about this episode with Lewinsky?

You like to rant about how Clinton lied, even though nobody disagrees with
you on that. How about addressing the question most important to ADULTS:

Why did anyone ask Clinton about this episode with Lewinsky?