Clinton's fake apologies (fwd)

[Anonymous]

In reply to my suggestion that lieing under oath isn't
a very good reason for impeachment,  

Jim Choate <ravage at einstein.ssz.com> wrote:
> Of course it's different if you preface your lie with "I swear to tell the
> truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".
> 
> The oath is voluntary and therefore if broken no claim for duress, only
> intentional misdirection, can explain such actions.

echoed by nobody at remailer.ch who wrote:
> ...If some public figure ... goes under oath and then lies, ...
> he's trying to throw a wrench in the
> justice system. It wouldn't be as bad if somebody like Jim or I lied under
> oath, but this guy is the chief executive of the United States. He's
> basically Top Cop, and his administration doesn't hesitate to press
> charges against people who commit all sorts of victimless crimes.
> 

I agree it's bad. I agree it undermines the justice system a little bit.
But, ... impeachment?

You're not charging him with murder (eg WACO), attacking the 1st ammendment (CDA),
the 4th (SSN on driver's licences), the 5th (GAK). You're going after Al Capone
for tax evasion. You want to get him because he's a Bad Person not because of
the particular crime. This is ironic, because his crimes against our basic
rights were committed while pursuing Bad People, but it is also hypocritical.

nobody at remailer.ch also wrote:
> [quoting me]
> > I'm honoured to draw an ad hominem before revealing that I'm on AOL.
> >
> > -- an anonymous aol32 user.
> 
> Actually, the amazing thing is that you're from AOL. You're coherent, you
> quote, and you know how to use a remailer. One in a million. ;)

Unbelievable, I would have thought. ;->

-- Aol32Monger