Yes, I admit this makes him look like an extreme hypocrite. I even admit that I think he’s a bit of a hypocrite for it. However, he does make a perfectly reasonable assertion: “The president of the United States got in trouble for committing a felony in front of a sitting federal judge”
That’s what people seem to want to forget. The whole Monica issue wasn’t the fact that Clinton was banging away on an office intern. That’s not our business and I couldn’t personally care less. What the President does with his prick is no ones business except him, his wife, and who he’s trying to put it into.
What the whole impeachment issue was about was Clinton being sued for sexual harassment and when he got on the stand, he lied. That’s a crime and should be prosecuted. Now, I’m willing to allow Clinton to serve out his term and be prosecuted for that crime after he leaves office. That’s where the “it depends on what your definition of “is” is, comes from. I watched him make that statement and my bullshit meter went off the scales. Yes, I can understand that admitting to an affair is personally embarrassing and I wouldn’t want to admit it either, but when you’re testifying under oath, you open yourself up to perjury charges later on if found out. That’s what happened to Clinton and because he was President at the time, why he was being impeached.
So, Newt certainly does look like a hypocrite, and I’ll be the first to call him that, but the fact is that Newt wasn’t under oath at the time when he was having his affair. That’s where the difference is. Had Newt testified that he wasn’t having an affair and this came to light, he would have been prosecuted and possibly impeached as well.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
No comments:
Post a Comment