Following Clinton's settlement with Jones federal prosecutors were going to prosecute him for actions stemming from the Jones case. Like I said before.
In order to avoid being federally prosecuted Clinton entered in his agreement that saved him from prosecution. Then rather than face disbarment he resigned. Simply put those are the facts. They still have not changed. I suppose it is possible he might not have been convicted. I think he knew that there was a pretty good chance he would not only be convicted of perjury but possibly obstruction of justice as well.
Last edited by Zaserac; 02-07-11 at 01:15 PM.
Whether or not you feel that justice was served in the subsequent case that had nothing to do with Jones has no bearing on the fact that Justice was indeed servd in th eJones case, wher eth eperjury occured, thu proving that the perjury did not have a detrimental effect on justic ebeing served. The key is that jones got exactly what she was asking for. To claim that justice was obstructed seems to be prety silly when the claimant got exactly what was requested, no?
You later admitted that you were guessing about why it was obstruction, which shows you knew for fact that your previous claim about it being obvious was not true, and therefore it was a lie.
Don't get all pissy if you get called on telling lies.
This is another lie. I never once called you a liar.Then you want to make it personal by calling me a liar.
When you understand the difference between the first sentence I just wrote and the second one, you'll understand that I've never once made it perosnal in this discussion.
Calling your claim a "lie", and the utterance of such a claim "lying" is very different form calling you a liar.
Sure, calling me haymarket and saying I'm not interesting isn't a personal response, but calling a lie a lie is making it personal and calling the utterance of lies "lying" is personal as well.I think I pretty successfully avoided the personal response back...because again...you just arent that interesting.