"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.

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??

Your Bush-hating bias clouds your "thinking" to the point of being a
redundant, hateful mantra, Jon. Lighten up.

Come on. We all know they lied. You're just trying to justify it by
talking about Clinton's foibles. He was found not guilty by the Senate
dude.

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


He was also found not guilty by the Senate. Or, do you deny that? Were the
senators paid off?


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?

Are you claiming Bush has never lied?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com