Moonbat Law 101

The following is all the more tiresome because they either cannot read, refuse to read, or forget easily. Professional apologists still weeping for the discredited and impeached horror of a President that was Bill Clinton.

Let the Rule of Law Prevail
By Terry M. Neal
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 25, 2005; 6:00 AM

"In the 1990s, "rule of law" was hot.
In the 2000s, not so much.

Republicans, who impeached and tried to remove a president who lied about his private sex life, have now decided that the whole "rule of law" thing really isn't all it's cut out to be."

No, no, and no again, you illiterate excuse for a columnist. How many times did the prosecution say it was nothing about Clinton's sex life, and ALL about Lewinsky offering to lie about the Paula Jones scandal if she got a really good job? A job she GOT thanks to influence peddling from the White House? Monica only became important because of the attempt to defuse the OTHER scandal involving Jones.

Weren't you around back then, Terry? Weren't you paying attention to why William Jefferson Clinton was tried and convicted?

But since you, and quite stupidly I might add, brought up Monica Lewinsky and referred to it as a "private affair", let me ask a simple man a simple question. If you're banging an intern on your desk, would your bosses consider it to be a PRIVATE affair?

Of course they wouldn't, Terry, they'd consider it a quite PUBLIC affair, and theft of company time and money, and so inappropriate you'd be fired on the spot.

All you are Terry, is a bad writer for a liberal newspaper, and your clueless ass would be looking for work, so don't you feel that a PRESIDENT should be held to a higher standard than some brainless twit who cannot understand simple English?

Rule of law, Terry? Do you even know what that means? What Clinton DID to deserve his just punishment?

But how silly of me, of course you don't. You "write" for the Washington Post.

UPDATE: 4:30 PM
The Corner on National Review Online

This explains why Bill Clinton's impeachment was not because of his "private sex life" as stated by the brainless Washington Post columnist, as it is far more detailed than my retort. It still doesn't tell the entire story, because that would take reams of paper and/or enough bandwidth to publish the Washington Post online for a week.

"Rule of Law?" Indeed. Where you, I, or any ordinary person to have done half of what the Clinton's got away with we'd be serving hard time for a long time.

BILL CLINTON'S PERJURY [Mark R. Levin]... he helped Monica Lewinsky write a false affidavit denying sexual relations with him; he intended the false affidavit to be used during his deposition, and in fact his lawyer (Bob Bennett) did use (unwittingly) the false affidavit to try to convince the judge overseeing the deposition (Susan Webber Wright) to limit questions to Clinton during the deposition; Clinton himself confirmed the accuracy of the false Lewinsky affidavit during his deposition; and Clinton lied repeatedly during the sworn deposition about his relationship with Lewinsky. There were no problems with bad recollections or unintended omissions. As Judge Wright ruled in her contempt holding against Clinton, Clinton made "intentionally false" statements. Clinton also enlisted others to lie for him. And considering the Jones lawsuit was about sexual harassment, and Jones's lawyers were trying to establish a practice and pattern of sexual misconduct to win their civil suit, this was no side issue. And yet, Clinton was not indicted. Robert Ray, the last of the independent counsels in the case, settled the case.