Ya wrote:" We all concluded it was sex and it was immoral. So Clinton was unable to hide behind a technicality."
If you are saying justice WAS done in Clinton's case to him and the country, it seems odd to me.
I think they "got him" on the technicality...because technically it was not illegal to do what he did in the White House.
He apparently felt, in his belief system, that if a person is diligently serving his country, then consentual "non-sex" would be okay...if nobody made a big thing about it. It was not in the interest of the country that we spent $70 million to go after him on that, was it? He has not been found, to this day, to have violated existing sex laws in the White House up to the time that the first dollar was spent to expose the "non-illegal"
activities he engaged in. So here was a case where he got in legal trouble because it was in the political interests of some folks who have been pretty close to ENRON.
It grieves me some that this is true, since the Clinton administration never asked me to take any "important" jobs and I wish there was someone who wasn't just scamming us when they invoke the name of Christ like the Cultural Crusader Michael Medved does.
On a separate note...It may be that he violated the law in his interview with Paula Jones, though I do not know what happened between them. If he sexually harassed her, that was serious enough. But if he merely propositioned her and did not create a hostile environment, the law probably did not cover that. It is very strange that the country felt this was more important than all the other impending crises. Mostly likely the opposition was to dumb to see it all coming...I hate to say that since my middle initial is W too, but the same crowd that benefitted politically from hosing Clinton... then gave $143 million to the Taliban just 10 weeks before the attack on Sept. 11.