Quote:

the G-man said:
Quote:

the G-man said:
...
Seriously, however, it there is good evidence that either of these guys lied under oath, they should be prosecuted. But at the same time simply having "he said she said" discrepancies is not particularly good evidence, just because the "he" is a Republican.


Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
I agree with you on that point. Hopefully you would apply the same reasoning if it was a Democrat in a similar position.



I seem to recall at least one prominent democrat who was prosecuted for lying under oath, and was found to have lied under oath and fined by the court. Where did you stand on his prosecution?



If it was a Republican under the same circumstances, I would really feel the same way. If say President Bush was legally maneuvered to testify about embarrassing aspects of his sex life & then lied about it, he would be just as guilty of perjury just like Clinton was. Not something I would want to undo an election for! I would be quite happy with some of the rules being changed (like being able to sue a sitting President) so that the nation doesn't have to go through that again, no matter what party it benefits at the time.

Fair play!