Ensign: I Did Nothing 'Legally Wrong'

Source: AP

FERNLEY, Nev. – Sen. John Ensign told The Associated Press on Wednesday that his affair with a friend's wife was a mistake but not as bad as former President Bill Clinton's relationship with a White House intern because he didn't lie about it under oath.

"I haven't done anything legally wrong," the Nevada Republican said.

"President Clinton stood right before the American people and he lied to the American people," Ensign said. "You remember that famous day he lied to the American people, plus the fact I thought he committed perjury. That's why I voted for the articles of impeachment."



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090820/ap_on_re_us/us_ensign_affair

---

What a jackass!

having an affair not really lying? Didn't he have to lie everyday about what he was doing? Where he was going? Can he be recalled for being elected under false pretenses?

So much for all that superior Evangelical morality. So much for his Promise Keeper horseshit doing anything but giving him another excuse to oppress his wife.

I sincerely hope his constituents are paying attention to this piece of shit and not buying a word of his rationalizations.

He can do anything he wants and God will forgive his transgressions, unlike us mere mortals!

What a jackass.

Then we could have had him lying under oath. At which point he would have refused to resign because "Clinton didn't." Damn that must have shocked them.

So I'm in the clear. Take them to jail if you want.

What a :puke:

Her salary on his campaign and PAC committees went up drastically. I doubt there was a commensurate increase in her responsibilities (of an official nature) during that time period. Isn't this why there is a grand jury looking into Edwards?

From another member of the "Do As I Say, Not As I Do" party, better known as the GOP.

From the party of family values, the moral majority and all that bullshit.

...can such a distinction be made where cheating on your wife and lying about it is so much less serious than cheating on your wife and lying about it under oath. One way is passable, but the other way is completely unforgivable? Impeachable, even?

These fuckers need their own country to screw up. America won't survive leadership like this. Send 'em all to the South and build a fence.

but it hadn't been enforced in these morally bereft times.

Personally, I'm tired of hearing about politicians' private affairs; but as long as the thugs are going to be hypocritical about it, I don't see any other option but to expose them.

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'


He should be stoned.

Anyone?

He did lie, but there was no perjury. His attorneys and Paula's attorney stipulated as to the definition of sex, and the judge signed off on it. The definition they were working under was limited to vaginal intercourse, and under that definition Clinton did not lie. A technicality, true, but that's what the law is: a whole bunch of technicalities.

Of course, he lied to his wife and to everyone else on the planet, but I've done worse and lied about it afterwards, so who am I too judge? At least I'm not a hypocrite.

The reason I have heard that it was not perjury was a technicality that what he lied about (an inappropriate involvement with ML) was not pertinent to what he was accused of. (From vague memory of what someone wrote on DU.)

Any lies told have to be material to a case that has merit in the first place. Since the case in which Clinton supposedly committed perjury was thrown out, no perjury existed.

This letter from Salon explains it better but no matter now many times this has been pointed out, the rightwing lie never goes away.

http://letters.mobile.salon.com/1d79fe132c1a66e5b1e5d4da3821e9ea/author/

Clinton did NOT commit perjury. The deposition with the Lewinsky questions was challenged by Clinton's lawyers, and the judge agreed that these questions should not be admissible, but Jones' attorneys FALSELY claimed they could prove the questions were germane. Further, Clintons lawyers argued the plaintiff's attorneys were known liars and had made false claims like this multiple times in the past, and the judge agreed with these objections as well. However, Jones' attorneys argued that being forced to provide their proof BEFORE the questions could be asked would cause too long a DELAY, so in the interest of HASTE the judge erroneously ordered Clinton to answer the questions.

The whole line of questioning was subsequently disallowed (as predicted) and the potentially perjurous questions were stricken from the record.

Jones entire case was ultimately thrown out on summary judgment as "without merit" having never proven their case. Clinton's lawyers never even staged a defense.

Going further, the supreme court decision that allowed the Jones case to go forward was gravely flawed in itself. Clearly, the President must be legally accountable to personal matters AFTER leaving office (statue of limitations laws should be suspended with regard to a sitting President) but while in office the President should be treated as the office itself, not as a man. It is ONLY the Congress, using it's impeachment powers, that should be permitted to challenge a sitting President.

The whole Lewinsky/Jones issue was an attempted coup d'etat against an elected president, using the judicial system as a bludgeon in the most disgusting way to accomplish it, rather than a gun. But the intent was the same and imo, stupid as Clinton was, but that's another matter, those who plotted the downfall of a president and cynically chose to use our judicial process to do so, should have been prosecuted.

no internal value system at all.

Not everything that is legal is OK to do, Ensign. You dig? it's called MORALS AND VALUES. INTEGRITY. THE VALUE OF YOUR WORD.

He sounds like a 2 year old, "clinton did it first and it was worse!" how long ago was that?> I thought the Pukes wanted to "move forward" and not discuss Bush crimes. But we shouldn't move forward when it comes to Clinton's blow job. Of course not.

After all, how many people died over his blow job? How many people were hurt as a result of Ensign's affair? Seems to me like he hurt the woman's family. she WAS married. At least Clinton did a single woman.

That's right, folks!

Repukes have not only given the green light to investigate RECENT REPUKE CRIMES, they want to go ALL THE WAY BACK TO CLINTON!!!

So, let's "thank" John Hypocrite Asshole for PERMITTING us to finally LOOK BACKWARD!!!

After all, we won't be looking as FAR BACK as THEY ARE - right?!!!

Let's MOVE FORWARD to only less than a COUPLE YEARS AGO!!!

they threw themselves under there. I didn't force them to pay that hush money, so if they go to jail for that, it's their own damn fault. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go to a Promise Keepers meeting and pray."

mikey_the_rat

in a quid pro quo fashion, is all just sooooo legal?

Exactly, how?

Oh I see why!! He didn't use the states jet to fly to argentina. Ahhh so clear now.

:banghead:

i remember that same rationale used during the bush years -- "So what if George Bush used invisible evidence to make the case for an illegal invasion? It's not like he cheated on his wife and lied under oath!!!" (this is a paraphrase from a REAL LTTE that ran locally about 4 years ago...)

Sauce for the goose...

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/1998/sep/28/sparks-fly-at-reid-ensign-debate/