Quote:
Originally posted by onetime2
Oh please. It's different, not completely different but still different. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer he is not an elected official. An elected official who is sworn to uphold the Constitution AND one that is supposed to be a court officer should not be committing perjury. It wasn't about sex, it wasn't about lying, it was about PERJURY. People claim that Nixon's crime was covering up the crime. It's the same as with Clinton. I could care less if he screwed the poodle in the Lincoln bedroom. It doesn't matter. When he then lies about it in court, under oath, it becomes a crime.
Was the Clinton investigation politically motivated? Of course. Should it have been investigated? Absolutely. The President committing crimes is different than the average citizen (or even a celebrity pseudo-journalist like Rush) committing them. Rush whining about being singled out is a joke, just as Clinton whining about it is. They each chose careers that could make them targets, they each understood that. The difference is, the President has more of a responsibility to the people as a leader than some self righteous radio "personality".
|
The difference is it is a conservative being prosicuted now instead of a democrat.
Clinton should have never been asked that question and even though he was he should have had no obligation to answer it. That was an issue between him and his wife not the government.
Now your saying that we should have double standards? I just want to make sure i get your side correctly. We should have double standards when prosicuting crimes?