Republican Senator

[Sulaco]

He didn't refuse to answer questions. Rather, he lied under oath. And that is what he was impeached for. Not for having an extra-marital relationship - as you imply.

True, he lied under oath. Are you saying that if he told the truth that he should have been left alone because he acted human?

He wouldn't have been impeached. He would have been accused of acting immorally. By Republicans. I don't think any Republican would argue Vitter was acting morally however.

What exactly was the point in bringing Clinton up anyway. Seems to be a very uninteresting deflection.

[jdobbin]

He wouldn't have been impeached. He would have been accused of acting immorally. By Republicans. I don't think any Republican would argue Vitter was acting morally however.

What exactly was the point in bringing Clinton up anyway. Seems to be a very uninteresting deflection.

Just seeing if you think the question by Congress was legitimate or not.

[Xman]

Ad hominen deflection.

[Mad_Michael]

Because he comitted a crime while sitting as POTUS.

His crime was not answering questions about the relationship. The affair itself was not a crime.

Actually in quite a few states in the union, adultery is in fact against the law.

[jdobbin]

Actually in quite a few states in the union, adultery is in fact against the law.

But not in the District of Columbia.

It still begs the question of whether asking any President or member of Congress whether they are having an affair under oath is anyone's business.

[Sulaco]

Actually in quite a few states in the union, adultery is in fact against the law.

But not in the District of Columbia.

It still begs the question of whether asking any President or member of Congress whether they are having an affair under oath is anyone's business.

Obviously that depends on context - no?

[jdobbin]

Obviously that depends on context - no?

Seems to me that Congress went on a fishing expedition with Clinton. But seeing as they asked the question, he should not have lied or tried to finesse it with legalese.

It seems to me that any politician will have to be clean as a whistle or reveal all their secrets lest a pesky journalist or committee forces them under oath to reveal if they have ever done anything wrong.

A Senator who had staked his reputation on family families should known that if he had any history of affairs, he would pay a price in credibility if it was revealed after the fact.

[Mad_Michael]

It still begs the question of whether asking any President or member of Congress whether they are having an affair under oath is anyone's business.

Of course the President's personal affairs are no one's business.

But lying about it under oath is illegal and that is the nation's business.

[M.Dancer]

Obviously that depends on context - no?

Seems to me that Congress went on a fishing expedition with Clinton. But seeing as they asked the question, he should not have lied or tried to finesse it with legalese.

It seems to me that any politician will have to be clean as a whistle or reveal all their secrets lest a pesky journalist or committee forces them under oath to reveal if they have ever done anything wrong.

A Senator who had staked his reputation on family families should known that if he had any history of affairs, he would pay a price in credibility if it was revealed after the fact.

Their is an intrusive system, but it is theirs.......if someone is being investigated becasue of credible allegations of sexual harassment and the subject claim to be faithful.....well.......he may or may not have been harassing anyone....but he did leave a stain on his career....

[jdobbin]

Of course the President's personal affairs are no one's business.

But lying about it under oath is illegal and that is the nation's business.

I agree on lying under oath. I just disagree that the question was even asked.

[jdobbin]

Their is an intrusive system, but it is theirs.......if someone is being investigated becasue of credible allegations of sexual harassment and the subject claim to be faithful.....well.......he may or may not have been harassing anyone....but he did leave a stain on his career....

Previous sexual history is not used in other cases. I still don't know why they didn't just base the case on the allegations made and whether there was evidence it took place. It really is intrusive and amounts to a fishing expedition which few people go untouched by.

[M.Dancer]

Their is an intrusive system, but it is theirs.......if someone is being investigated becasue of credible allegations of sexual harassment and the subject claim to be faithful.....well.......he may or may not have been harassing anyone....but he did leave a stain on his career....

Previous sexual history is not used in other cases. I still don't know why they didn't just base the case on the allegations made and whether there was evidence it took place. It really is intrusive and amounts to a fishing expedition which few people go untouched by.

Other cases, correct. But Clinton wasn't in court so that's irrelevant.

[jdobbin]

Other cases, correct. But Clinton wasn't in court so that's irrelevant.

He was under the same legal obligations as court though.

[Sulaco]

Their is an intrusive system, but it is theirs.......if someone is being investigated becasue of credible allegations of sexual harassment and the subject claim to be faithful.....well.......he may or may not have been harassing anyone....but he did leave a stain on his career....

Previous sexual history is not used in other cases. I still don't know why they didn't just base the case on the allegations made and whether there was evidence it took place. It really is intrusive and amounts to a fishing expedition which few people go untouched by.

Your are not completely correc t. While evidence of past acts has very limitted use in trial it can still come in for impeachment purposes and other reasons. It cannot be used to show predispositions. However ourtside of trials evidence rules are very much relaxed. In a deposition for instance the only protection a person who is answering questions has has to do with his privileges - doctor, attorney, 5th AMendment. He pretty much has to answer everything else. What is admissible is sorted out only later.

[Sulaco]

Other cases, correct. But Clinton wasn't in court so that's irrelevant.

He was under the same legal obligations as court though.

In the sense that he was under oath - yes. But the people questioning him had far fewer limits on what they could ask. Outside of trials far more evidence is admissible. For example hearsay is pretty much completely asmissible in criminal preliminary hearings, or revocations of probation. Grand juries can review enormous amounts of trial inadmissible evidence to determine whether indictments can be filed.

[jdobbin]

In the sense that he was under oath - yes. But the people questioning him had far fewer limits on what they could ask. Outside of trials far more evidence is admissible. For example hearsay is pretty much completely asmissible in criminal preliminary hearings, or revocations of probation. Grand juries can review enormous amounts of trial inadmissible evidence to determine whether indictments can be filed.

Don't get me started on my opinion of grand juries.

Clinton eventually paid the price. I'm sure some Republicans would have liked to have seen him go to jail but I doubt that even Bush would have left an ex-President sit in the pen.

I don't know that Vitter will be charged with a crime. One thing is certain and that is he has gone into hiding rather than face his critics. It is possible he might be forgiven by the electorate. He has a long way to go before facing them again. Still, it will be hard for him to talk about family values without someone always asking where he went wrong. I see a visit to FOX to grovel for understanding coming.

[Sulaco]

In the sense that he was under oath - yes. But the people questioning him had far fewer limits on what they could ask. Outside of trials far more evidence is admissible. For example hearsay is pretty much completely asmissible in criminal preliminary hearings, or revocations of probation. Grand juries can review enormous amounts of trial inadmissible evidence to determine whether indictments can be filed.

Don't get me started on my opinion of grand juries.

Clinton eventually paid the price. I'm sure some Republicans would have liked to have seen him go to jail but I doubt that even Bush would have left an ex-President sit in the pen.

I don't know that Vitter will be charged with a crime. One thing is certain and that is he has gone into hiding rather than face his critics. It is possible he might be forgiven by the electorate. He has a long way to go before facing them again. Still, it will be hard for him to talk about family values without someone always asking where he went wrong. I see a visit to FOX to grovel for understanding coming.

And his best defense politically is to answer - "This is where I went wrong." And then lecture. People love "I returned to the fold stories".

[Liam]

Your arguement is silly. I know what you're reselling - homosexual marriage does not undermine the institution, heterosexual misbehavior does. That arguement does not stand up to scrutiny. Though I tend to agree that no-fault divorce has made the vows meaningless in law and perhaps thus less meaningful in society.

You assume way too much about my position.

Here's a Republican's take on this, which I agree with:

http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/07/hypocrisy_all_around.php

Key quote: "I will say to my Republican friends that it does no good to whine about double standards. You’re going to have to concede the hypocrisy point to our Democratic friends on this one. If you’re going to lecture people about the sanctity of marriage as it relates to banning gay unions or campaign on a platform stressing “family values,” it would be best if you didn’t go whoring around on your wife, wetting your wick at $300 a pop."

[sunsettommy]

Because he comitted a crime while sitting as POTUS.

His crime was not answering questions about the relationship. The affair itself was not a crime.

True his infidelity was not worth the partisan investigation.

The problem is that Clinton OBSTRUCTED that investigation,compelled a few people to lie for him and slander some of the women.

The rest is history.

[noahbody]

Senators need lovin' too.

[sunsettommy]

Yet another "family values" hypocrite. He's done more damage to marriage than the gay folks he fought to ostracize ever could.

Just curious.

Did the Senator preach "family Values"?

I have no idea what he stands for.

Edited July 14, 2007 by sunsettommy

[jdobbin]

Some of David Vitters' ads.

It was David Vitter himself who used the words "family values" whenever he gave speeches.

Here's what Vitter had to say about moral failings.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070711...enation/3212734

But that doesn't answer the question of whether President Clinton should be impeached and removed from office because he is morally unfit to govern.

The writings of the Founding Fathers are very instructive on this issue. They are not cast in terms of political effectiveness at all but in terms of right and wrong -- moral fitness. Hamilton writes in the Federalists Papers (No. 65) that impeachable offenses are those that "proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust."

In considering impeachment, Vitter asserted, Congress had to judge Clinton on moral terms. Decrying the law professors' failure to see this, Vitter observed, "Is that the level of moral relatively [sic] and vacuousness we have come to?" If no "meaningful action" were to be taken against Clinton, Vitter wrote, "his leadership will only further drain any sense of values left to our political culture."

[SkyhookJackson]

Those darn, family-value Republican rascals. They just can't stay out of trouble. From today's Miami (Florida) Herald:

A Republican state lawmaker charged with offering to perform oral sex for $20 on an undercover male police officer vowed Thursday to defend himself in court and said he would not resign from office.

"I am filing a not guilty plea. I am vigorously going to fight this," State Rep. Bob Allen, a co-chair of Republican presidential candidate John McCain's campaign in Florida, said at a news conference. "I am not resigning my office because the people elected me and want me to do a good job. I am going to do a good job for them in finishing this term."

http://www.miamiherald.com/775/story/167707.html

[Sulaco]

Your arguement is silly. I know what you're reselling - homosexual marriage does not undermine the institution, heterosexual misbehavior does. That arguement does not stand up to scrutiny. Though I tend to agree that no-fault divorce has made the vows meaningless in law and perhaps thus less meaningful in society.

You assume way too much about my position.

Here's a Republican's take on this, which I agree with:

http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/07/hypocrisy_all_around.php

Key quote: "I will say to my Republican friends that it does no good to whine about double standards. You’re going to have to concede the hypocrisy point to our Democratic friends on this one. If you’re going to lecture people about the sanctity of marriage as it relates to banning gay unions or campaign on a platform stressing “family values,” it would be best if you didn’t go whoring around on your wife, wetting your wick at $300 a pop."

I conceded the "hypocrisy point" at the outset of this thread. I just argue that it is human to be hypocritical. If we were to discount any normative statements made by "hypocrites" we'd be able to seek guidance from no one.

Edited July 13, 2007 by Sulaco

[Liam]

I conceded the "hypocrisy point" at the outset of this thread. I just argue that it is human to be hypocritical. If we were to discount any normative statements made by "hypocrites" we'd be able to seek guidance from no one.

I would be superhuman for someone to never utter a hypocritical statement, I agree. Everyone is human. The problem I have is when someone takes an iron-clad stance on an issue, to be a warrior on some topic (and to demonize those who don't meet his or her standards) only to be later discovered to engaging in the very acts which stand in direct contradiction to his public persona.

I don't care if the guy is a Republican or a Democrat. It just so happens that this guy is another "family values" cretin who is anything but what he says. I'd feel the same if some liberal human rights activist was discovered to be profiting from sweat-shop child labor overseas. (Actually, though, I think Vitter has earned just a little bit more of my scorn since and I do take his statements quite personally. I am gay and he went out of his way to cast people like me as the enemy of "the family". Little does he know how many people there are like me: single gay parent raising a couple of kids on his own. Yeah, we're such a threat to all that is good and decent and he is such a model citizen, cheating on his wife while paying cash for hookers and all.)

Edited July 13, 2007 by Liam