Yeah...I'm probably not going to make many friends with this statement, but I think that this is one of the stupidest cases I can remember in my lifetime. Look, if the problem is that he used campaign funds to pay his mistress off, and the treasurer says that the money was never put into the campaign bank account, then it's obvious that he didn't do what the prosecution claims. Did he go around saying that the money given as gifts (and yes, everyone involved said that it was a gift) were donations to the campaign? Yes. He lied to keep the money secret. But he didn't try to legally pass it off as donations only to illegally use it. I guess if the donaters gave them money to the campaign only for it to be used as a bribe payoff, then there might be a case, but again, it seems like the two main gift givers knew exactly what it was used for.
All he did was lie to anyone not in the loop who knew about money coming in who didn't know that it wasn't meant to be campaign donations--he did NOT take campaign donations and give it to his mistress.
A second stupid case is the super-tanned mom who NJ thinks let her daughter tan. Look, the kid went with her parents to the salon and waited outside with dad while mom tanned. On Monday she tells her friend that she went to the tanning salon with her mom. A: the kid is like 5--she told the truth as she saw it. The fact that she had a slight sunburn (because B: the kid is fair haired and fair skinned and on a sunny day would start to burn in 5 minutes) made some adult jump to a crazy conclusion. Look--you would KNOW if the sunburn was caused by tanning. I mean, in the worst case senario, that the mom DID take her daughter to tan, wouldn't she have worn a swim suit? Then the burn would have been on parts of her body not covered by a t-shirt and shorts. Tan Mom doesn't look like the type to let her daughter get a farmer's tan if she took her to the salon.
I'm watching the American Experience documentary on Clinton. Some former Republican from Mississippi just said that he could never figure out how Clinton could perjer himself and do "that with that woman" and end up just where he was before it started (Republicans lost seats while Democrats gained in Congress). Well, that's simple. Sure, he lied, but why was he on trial to begin with? He had an affair--is that against the law? Apparently the guy who found it out was sent to look into Clinton was looking at WhiteWater (some kind of real estate scam). I'm sorry, but it seems a bit like entrapment--Congress was going to kick him out of office for lying about something not related to the job he was elected for. Sure had he told the truth in the very beginning he wouldn't have had any problem, but he was lying about a personal issue. If they'd overlooked the affair, they wouldn't have had the trial where he lied. Which begs the question of should government be looking into affairs--no. It's not government's job to police the bedroom--that's the job of divorce attorneys. If he'd raped Lewenski or otherwise broken the law in a sexual way, then fine. But until adultery is a crime that you can go to jail for, there shouldn't have been the inquiry that perjured Clinton in the first place.
All he did was lie to anyone not in the loop who knew about money coming in who didn't know that it wasn't meant to be campaign donations--he did NOT take campaign donations and give it to his mistress.
A second stupid case is the super-tanned mom who NJ thinks let her daughter tan. Look, the kid went with her parents to the salon and waited outside with dad while mom tanned. On Monday she tells her friend that she went to the tanning salon with her mom. A: the kid is like 5--she told the truth as she saw it. The fact that she had a slight sunburn (because B: the kid is fair haired and fair skinned and on a sunny day would start to burn in 5 minutes) made some adult jump to a crazy conclusion. Look--you would KNOW if the sunburn was caused by tanning. I mean, in the worst case senario, that the mom DID take her daughter to tan, wouldn't she have worn a swim suit? Then the burn would have been on parts of her body not covered by a t-shirt and shorts. Tan Mom doesn't look like the type to let her daughter get a farmer's tan if she took her to the salon.
I'm watching the American Experience documentary on Clinton. Some former Republican from Mississippi just said that he could never figure out how Clinton could perjer himself and do "that with that woman" and end up just where he was before it started (Republicans lost seats while Democrats gained in Congress). Well, that's simple. Sure, he lied, but why was he on trial to begin with? He had an affair--is that against the law? Apparently the guy who found it out was sent to look into Clinton was looking at WhiteWater (some kind of real estate scam). I'm sorry, but it seems a bit like entrapment--Congress was going to kick him out of office for lying about something not related to the job he was elected for. Sure had he told the truth in the very beginning he wouldn't have had any problem, but he was lying about a personal issue. If they'd overlooked the affair, they wouldn't have had the trial where he lied. Which begs the question of should government be looking into affairs--no. It's not government's job to police the bedroom--that's the job of divorce attorneys. If he'd raped Lewenski or otherwise broken the law in a sexual way, then fine. But until adultery is a crime that you can go to jail for, there shouldn't have been the inquiry that perjured Clinton in the first place.
No comments:
Post a Comment