At 05:31 PM 6/14/01 +1000 Brett Coster wrote:
>Er, John. I cannot seem to recall you using this above argument about the
>rule of law re the Violence against women act one single time in the months
>of correspondence on this list about Clinton's impeachment.
Well, I clearly remember doing so. O.k., I may not have specifically used
the name "VAWA" - but I am positive that I cited the fact that Bill Clinton
was responsible for signing into law to legal statutes that permitted Paula
Jones to legally requist Clinton's sexual curiculum vitae.
At any rate, whether I said so or not at the time is irrelevant - the point
stands on its own merits.
>And did the courts REALLY say that the President is particularly not "above
>the Law (most especially Laws he very publicly supported and signed)" ??? Or
>is this a wee bit of editorialising in the midst of your argument?
Yes, as a matter of fact they did. The Circuit Court Judge who was
hearing the case (whose name escapes me right now) was positively scathing
in its criticism of Bill Clinton. The US Supreme Court also said very
much the same thing in denying Bill Clinton's appeal, thus opening the way
for his testimony.
>Life is not a debating society.
Which is why, of course, that you devoted 50% of your message to
criticizing the *process* rather than the *substance* of my ideas, right?
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"Compassionate conservatism is the way to reconcile the two most vital
conservative intellectual traditions: libertarianism & Catholic social
thought."
-Michael Gerson, advisor to George W. Bush
