"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message

He lied about a consenual affair between two adults.

President of the United States and a youthful intern. This would be
sexual harassment of the most grievous kind.

It would be if she wasn't interested or felt pressure. It was her idea I
believe.

Doesn't matter. When a person in an ultimate power position makes or
accepts advances from a bottom dweller, it's harassment. Check out some
of the court's decisions on such cases. If Monica had filed sexual
harassment charges against him, he'd likely have been convicted. My
guess is that she was paid off to forget the whole thing.

You're just plain wrong:
Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or
physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when
submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly
affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an
individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or
offensive work environment.

Such definitions are irrelevant in light of redundant court decisions. You
can quote them all you like, but they mean nothing. Law is more a matter of
legal precedent than definitions written in some book. At least two other
people have told you this as well, but you refuse to acknowledge the truth
of the matter. That, however, is nothing new.


So, now you're saying it was ok to out an agent? I believe that's a
federal offense.

The evidence today points to someone else--neither Libby nor Cheney.
Where have you been? The charges against Libby are for obstruction of
justice, not outing Plame.


There's a trial. Are you not willing to wait until the verdict??

The trial has nothing to do with blowing Valerie Plame's cover. Libby has
virtually been acquitted of that. The trial is now an anti-Bush/Cheney
witch hunt. It is about obstruction, not outing an agent. In light of new
information that exonerates Libby and the White House, the prosecutor is
running with the only thing he has--an obstruction charge. It's strictly
political now.

He was found guilty by a federal court for lying to a federal grand jury.


He was also found not guilty by the Senate.

No, he wasn't. He was impeached, but the Senate refused to remove him from
office. That was probably a good decision for the welfare of the country.
But it's rather like the decision in the O.J. Simpson case--he was
acquitted, but that is a far cry from stating that he is innocent. He's
not, nor was Clinton. A president who lies for political purposes is a
liability to the country and a denegration to the office of the President.
Show me some evidence that Bush lied about WMDs and I'll be the first to
call for his impeachment.

Show me one piece of evidence that Bush lied about WMDs prior to the Iraq
war? Hint: you can't, because he didn't. He was misinformed by the
intel community. And no doubt he was happy to have a reason to invade
Iraq, but he expected to find WMDs in Iraq and was just as puzzled as the
rest of us why none were uncovered.

Responding to bad intel is not lying, no matter how you spin it. It may
have been stupidity, but not deception.


I'm not a prosecuter nor a judge. There's plenty of evidence out there,
and it should be vetted in court. Are you afraid of that?

Not in the least. I'm under the impression that Bush has handled the Iraq
situation with incompetence and stubborn ignorance. But I've seen no
evidence that he deliberately falsified information in order to further his
agenda. Show me that, and I'll call for his ouster.

Are you claiming Bush has never lied?

Every human being lies. Even you, difficult as that may be to accept. g
But as to the WMDs, I don't believe he lied. He knew well that if the WMDs
weren't found, his ratings would be in the basement. He took the risk,
believing WMDs were a good sell to the American public for the elimination
of Saddam Hussein. And I believe he had ulterior motives for taking Saddam
down. But I don't believe he *knew* there were no WMDs. IF he is impeached
for lying about WMDs, the case will never fly. There is simply no evidence
that he deliberately falsified such info. There IS a preponderance of
evidence that he was given faulty intel. THAT is probably why Pelosi took
impeachment off the table--she's a good attorney and knows a non-case when
she sees it.

Max