> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:brin-l- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 6:04 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Clinton's Perjury *Again* RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words > > > What democrats said that it was acceptable for Clinton to lie under > > oath? > > > > I don't know what other Democrats may have said. I never said it was > acceptable for him to lie under oath. I just didn't think it was an > impeachable > offense.
Perjury generally carries a punishment of up to five years imprisonment and a hefty fine leveled by a Federal court. I agree that it should have been impeachable but it shouldn't be trivialized either. I think it was appropriate for him to be disbarred over it. > I also think he should never have been forced to face that deposition, > since > Paula Jones's case was, in my opinion, purely politically motivated by > people > who hated Clinton no matter what he did. I didn't believe he should have been forced to face it then. I do now. IMO, a President should not be above the law except in situations where doing so would seriously endanger national security. > > That said, he should have told the truth. > Darn straight. The lie was doubly compounded when he looked the country in the eye on primetime television and said it to our faces. If he'd told the truth instead the country probably would have given him an 80% approval rating rather than a 60%. Jon _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
