A digression

But one I probably ought to take. The Clinton impeachment is irrelevant to the present situation, which concerns a completely different factual basis. It is even less relevant to the question of the current Resident ' s mental and moral condition and his fitness for office, which is what my previous post is about. In other words, it ' s an attempt to change the subject, a typical troll tactic.So I ' ll take the subject change right here. Regarding the exact nature of Mr. Clinton ' s misconduct, I believe that Paula Jones initiated the activity. I don ' t think Clinton demanded it of her and I don ' t think he promised her anything in exchange. Nevertheless she expected to get something for it and she was understandably angry when she didn ' t, and felt exploited. Monica Lewinsky fully stipulated that she initiated the relationship.Nevertheless, Clinton was absolutely obliged to refuse them both. His conduct was grossly unethical and also incredibly foolish. In the case of Lewinsky, who was besotted and barely an adult, it was irresponsible and contemptible. And by the way, I ' ve had students come on to me and I know never to go there.However, the articles of impeachment did not address the underlying conduct, but only deceit. I think the allegations of subornation lacked an adequate factual basis, but Clinton undoubtedly lied personally, both in public and under oath. The argument against removal from office hinges on the misconduct not being related to his official duties a...
Source: Stayin' Alive - Category: American Health Source Type: blogs