"I didn't say that what he did was ethical or legal, but I find it interesting that the sex scandal was the highlight of a long list of less spectacular alleged wrongs."Maybe so. Like I said, I opposed his impeachment at the time and have never changed my mind. But imagine that a Republican President was sued for sexual harassment, then proceeded to perjure himself on several occasions when asked about dalliances with a young intern in the oval office as part of an inquiry into his sexual history authorized by sexual harassment law (however, unfortunate this legal intrusion may be). Some might argue that the Democrats would have the same reaction as they did with a Democratic president: it's just sex, get over it, etc, and obviously neither perspective can be proven in any real sense since it deals with hypothetical events. I doubt it though. I bet they'd go after him just as fiercely as the Republicans went after Clinton.
Also: Buster, props on the amusingly extended cat metaphor
It's not a requirement. But in sexual harassment cases, the presumption is that the accused's sexual history is relevant and can be asked in depositions and, later, at trial. Similarly, in most states, a man accused of rape can have his sexual history and personal history admitted. In virtually all cases, the person making the accusation is shielded from similar inquiries. My whole point was that this two-tiered system was created by feminists so it was quite comical during the Clinton imbroglio to hear them suddenly discover the concepts of fairness and privacy for those accused of sexual harassment.
It seems pretty clear to me. He was ordered by Judge Wright to answer questions about his sex life. He clearly perjured himself about his relationship with Lewisnky (which, unfortunately, is legally considered relevant). He also appears to have inadvertantly confirmed that he lied in his new autobiography (by conceding that the relationship began when she was an intern, which he steadfastly denied in the Grand Jury hearing). Don't think he should have been impeached but I do think he committed perjury.
I definitely don't agree with this. To proceed. all you need is a willing accuser and a court that says the president can be sued while in office. The Supreme Court ruled UNANIMOUSLY that the suit could go forward. I don't see how it can be argued that Justice Stephens, Justice Souter, Justice Ginsberg, and Justice Breyer, among others, were prepared to apply a harsher standard to a Democratic president than they would a republican one.
His lie in the deposition was technically a lie (the definition of sexual relations was VERY broad), it was deemed relevant by the judge and it certainly was intentional. Insofar as the Grand Jury hearing was specifically for the purpose of examining Clinton's false statements in the deposition, certainly his lies were relevant there.