Newt tells Daddy D about humpin' around during Bill Clinton persecution

Newt Has All the Morals of a Newt, But He's Correct

He's correct when he says that Clinton was not on trial for adutery; his impeachment was about lying in front of a judge, lying to a grand jury, witness tampering, and possibly (I forgot) abuse of power.  Bill's only defense was that his sex life was nobody's business, and since he never had to answer such questions, then lying was just fine.  In reality, questions about sex are asked every day in courtrooms, particularly in cases of abuse, divorce and custody.  The JUDGE decides which questions may be asked and answered, not the defendant.  You or I would wind up in The Big House if we got caught lying before a judge or grand jury, and it matters not what the topic was.  Let me say why I had no sympathy for Clinton.  He stole my vote in 1992 because he said he would end the gay ban in the military with the stroke of a pen as an executive order.  In reality, he had no such intention.  Once he got gay campaign contributions and gay votes, he turned over the idea to a bi-partisan board.  I'll never forget what Sen. Sam Nunn said about gays and lesbians... shameful and insulting, how we would destroy morale, and of course (shudder) the shower... oh, the horror.  Nunn was a Democrat, btw.  Not only did Bill Clinton not deliver what he promised, but never even defended us when we were called names and labeled a disruption and threat to our nation's defense.  Clinton accepted a compromise called Don't Ask/Don't Tell, which has resulted in an increase in bashings, discharges, and even murder of gay servicemen and women.  There are some Clinton apologists who say that ending the gay ban was impossible to begin with, and DADT was a sincere compromise.  This is patently untrue.  Bill Clinton, in fact, could have issued the order, exactly as he had promised, and ordered the generals to implement it, and by now everyone would have long seen that the sky didn't fall, gay and straight soldiers working together without hanky-panky, the type that Bill himself was engaged in.  Why am I glad Bill Clinton got painted into a corner, his private life put under the microscope, forced to conceal, lie and be deceptive, and worry about keeping his job?  Because that is precisely what Don't Ask, Don't Tell is, his and Hillary's "gift" to us.

=>The truth usually isn't pretty. Don't blame me for telling it.<=

---

by: Chadster @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 00:28:16 AM CST

Great post Chadster!

I think America will reach greatness when we have a party that truly follows through on being for We The People, including gays.

I think because our anger and hurt related to Bill Clinton's not standing up for gays/lesbians stronger than he could have, Hillary Clinton will not ever get the full support ($$$) of gays and lesbains.

No more bushs!  No more Clintons!

---

by: Juan @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 02:59:38 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Right on Chad

I agree with you 100%. In case you didn't hear Hillary is already courting the vote of the GLBT community by making statements that "she" will lift the ban on gays in the military and promote equality for us if she is elected.
It looks like another copy of what her hubby did when he was running for office. I really that we had someone on our side during that election and gave Clinton strong support. It will be a lot harder to do  so in this election what with the way he has trodden on us with his broken promises, most likely a scenario to be carried on with Hillary if she (gasp) makes it into the whitehouse again.

---

by: stacheman @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 08:52:29 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Little chance I'd believe Hillary on that one. . .

if she can't even publicly acknowledge speaking before HRC, we can't expect much better treatment if she is in office.

---

by: kevinbgoode @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 10:10:31 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Like the Old Saying

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...

=>The truth usually isn't pretty. Don't blame me for telling it.<=

---

by: Chadster @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 19:03:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not quite....

He's correct when he says that Clinton was not on trial for adutery; his impeachment was about lying in front of a judge, lying to a grand jury, witness tampering, and possibly (I forgot) abuse of power.

Actually, what Newt says about the impeachment is flatly false.  He claims that it was about "committing a felony in front of a sitting federal judge."  That did not happen.  And your claim that if anyone else had similarly lied, s/he would have been jailed "it matters not what the topic was" relies on the same misunderstanding. 

Perjury is not simply making a false statement under oath.  It is knowingly making a false statement under oath on a matter of material relevance to the case.  The lie Clinton told--or, in his understanding of it, the sophistic word-play meant to mislead--was deemed not materially relevant. There was no perjury.  That does not mean that his actions were acceptable; he's a lawyer, an officer of the court.  That means that, rather than being allowed to get away with behavior that would have landed you in jail, he's held to higher standards than you are.  And he was: his license to practice law was revoked.  But it was clear at the time, and has been officially judged now, that his lie did not constitute perjury. 

Newt knows that, and he's simply lying.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, but it does bug me when someone just knowingly repeats Republican slander.

---

by: Diogenes @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 18:38:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

correction

Sorry, I meant "unkowingly" repeats Republican slanders.  I wasn't suggesting you were in league.

---

by: Diogenes @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 18:40:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Who Decides What's Relevant When Giving Testimony?

Two answers, Diogenes-- in a monarchy, the king or queen.  And for that matter, the royals can be the judge and jury, too.  However, in our system, it is supposed to be the judge.  That is why she fined Bill $40,000, if I recall correctly.  Of course, Bill had a defense fund for that.  Look, I have utter contempt for the Republicans, but when they're right, they're right.  They expected Bill would lie under oath before the judge and in front of the grand jury, and Bill didn't let them down. 

=>The truth usually isn't pretty. Don't blame me for telling it.<=

---

by: Chadster @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 19:01:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You've missed the point. Again.

I'm not sure what the point of the monarchy comment is, except to cloud the issue.  But you're right: a judge or jury decidees in our system whether perjury was committed.  And guess what?  There is NO judicial finding that Clinton committed perjury.  NONE.  If you find such a ruling--which would be the wet-dream of Republican commentators--do make it public.  The world would like to know.

Meanwhile, please keep in mind that when you're talking about matters of fact, it's not simply enough to assert a position.  You have to be able to back it up.  And you can't back up the claim that Clinton committed perjury, because there is no judicial ruling that he did so.  Again: NONE. 

That's not a matter of political opinion.  That's a matter of judicial record. 

---

by: Diogenes @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 20:47:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

My Monarchy Remark

My point was that Clinton did think he was imperial, and I don't mean the margarine.  Now I'm not looking any of this up and it's from my memory, but the judge in the Paula Jones case, which is really the epicenter of the impeachment fracas, fined Clinton $40,000 and her travel expenses for making "false and misleading statements."  That is what I remember, and unlike Scooter Libby, I have a good memory.  Now, how technically "perjury" is different, I don't know.  It was also for being false and misleading that he was disbarred in Arkansas for a period.  If you or I are a defendant and we feel a question the prosecution asks is not relevant, our attorney would object.  The judge would decide.  Feeling you are above the law and deciding for yourself is, well, Clintonian.  You notice that Chimpy and Sourpuss, both congenital liars, wouldn't answer questions about 9/11 under oath. 

=>The truth usually isn't pretty. Don't blame me for telling it.<=

---

by: Chadster @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 22:06:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

you're right, but...

All of this is basically correct.  But the point is simply that it's an abuse of the facts to declare that Clinton committed perjury.  As you said, that's a decision for a judge or jury, and it's simply the case that there was no finding that he committed perjury.  Now, you might claim that he acted dishonorably; that he abused his power by sleeping with a subordinate; that in responding to questions about his behavior he acted in a way that was tantamount to perjury or that should have been declared to be perjury.  (And that's leaving aside the issue of whether those questions should have been asked in an investigation that was authorized over Whitewater.)

But what you can't say, and what Newt does say, is that he committed a felony.  The morality of what he did aside, there is no judicial finding of perjury.  That doesn't mean he didn't lie.  That doesn't mean he didn't suffer legal penalties for what he did (and notice that in my first post I pointed out that he'd been disbarred).  It just means that by the finding of a court he did not commit perjury, and he did not commit a felony.  Newt is simply rabble-rousing.

---

by: Diogenes @ Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 01:21:36 AM CST

[ Parent ]

P.S.

The post you were responding to, I realize too late, sounds condescending. This was entirely unintentional.  Thanks for not taking it as bait, and for responding civilly.
:=)

---

by: Diogenes @ Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 01:34:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

One Last Thought

Well, of course I'm civil, I'll never join the Fuck You Club nomatter what.  That said, I looked up Clinton's Impeachment and the 3 articles were: 1) Perjury in the Paula Jones trial, 2) Perjury before the grand jury and 3) Obstruction of Justice.  Billy Jeff was convicted of only the 3rd.  Now, the Jones judge found Bill guilty of making false and misleading statements, which to me tastes like I Can't Believe It's Not Perjury, but you're right, technically not perjury. Clinton lied like a rug before the grand jury, I recall, but a grand jury has no judge, and so walked as far as perjury.  The House gave him a pass on perjury, also.  It reminds me of an old Mae West line: "I was in a tight spot, but I managed to wriggle out of it,"
she drawled.  Clinton reminds me also of something Lillian Hellman said about Mary McCarthy: "Every word she writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the.'"

=>The truth usually isn't pretty. Don't blame me for telling it.<=

---

by: Chadster @ Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 02:04:50 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Unbelievable! Well ... maybe not.

When it rains, it pours.  As I keep reading, "you can't make this up!"

How much deeper holes can these HYPOCRITICAL RepubliCONs be?

I think 2008 will call for a STRONG DEMOCRAT Senate, Congress & Presidency!
:-)

---

by: Juan @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 02:55:50 AM CST

Nearly everyone of the house impeachment committe...

that prosecuted Clinton had had an affair.  So gay some straight.  When Henry Hyde from Illinois the lead prosecuter was asded about his own affair, he said, " the statute of limitations is up on my personal situation."

The hypocrisy is beyond belief.

---

by: TomHickey @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 07:38:58 AM CST

Clinton wasn't impeached for the affair, or for sex, or a BJ

He was impeached for lying under oath.  So the only way people were "hypocritical" in that situation is if they also lied under oath and then voted to impeach Clinton.

---

by: torrentprime @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 11:07:19 AM CST

[ Parent ]

So, torrentprime...

...now that Irving Lewis "Scooter" Libby has been found guilty of lying under oath (to both the Grand Jury and the FBI), do you think he needs to be pardoned because "he's just the fall guy"?  And/or no actual crime was committed?  Or any of another dozen justifications why Patrick Fitzgerald is as bad or worse than Ken Starr that the Reichwing like to trot out to defend "Big" Dick Cheney and Commander Codpiece?... 

---

by: MikeEss @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 17:23:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Since your question

Has absolutely nothing to do with charges of hypocrisy, I am afraid your question has nothing to do with my post.

To answer your question anyway, no of course Libby shouldn't be pardoned: he was found guilty of perjury.  He should be punished.  Do you feel the same about Clinton?

You are sadly conflating whether perjury is a crime with whether I think it's a bad thing.  I do believe lying under oath is wrong, whether it's Clinton or Libby.  Do you believe the same?

---

by: torrentprime @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 14:03:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Con-servatives often have a conscious disconnect between

the morality they profess before the public and what they practice in their own lives. As much as they crow about how there is no constitutional right to privacy, they are also the first to scream loudly when personal activities among their numbers are exposed as an invasion of their privacy.

Gingrich willingly participated in a sort of social perjury by promoting the Lewinsky scandal in all the blue-dress-soap-opera glory. Would he have lied in from of a grand jury himself that brought that accusation to light? Hmm...well, what sort of character does a man have who was willing to lie in keeping his vows to a wife, which is (according to conservatives) the most sacred commitment you can make? The Clinton investigation, along with the impeachment, wasn't supported by the American people. One of the strangest observations at the time is that Bill Clinton still remained fairly popular with the American people during that whole conservative-led charge. Why was that the case? Because it is common for Americans to lie about sexual activity. Drop into any divorce hearing and listen to the wild departures from reality often concocted in the legal system to justify dissolution of marriage and the tales are often exaggerated - yet I don't see many cases of people being charged with perjury. Of course, this is dealing with family court.

As for the DADT policy, as shameful as that implementation was in 1993, it did result for some time in a reduction of harassment and discharges among military personnel. There was, to my recollection, only one murder attributed to sexual orientation during the time. Was it an improvement over the policies of the past? Perhaps partially. Some units did stop their incessant witch-hunting and gay baiting, while some did not. But at the time, con-servatives (mostly Republicans but some Democrats) were so involved with protecting their peepees in the shower against the gay menace that the cohesiveness of the military was more threatened by THAT rhetoric than anything acknowledging that gay Americans were already serving in the military with honor.

What is perhaps more telling is that, under the Bush Administration, anti-harassment policies and recommendations submitted in the last year of the Clinton Administration don't appear to have been implemented under Rumsfeld. In at least one location, gay soldiers who 'come out" are sent overseas to serve their combat duty and THEN get discharged when the tour is over. There are still problems of people being harassed on the perception of being gay rather than the reality - a testimony to the power of imagery used by con-servatives when they screamed about the DADT policy back in 1993.

Changes in attitude within the ranks can be partially attributed to the experience of American soldiers serving with forces of other NATO countries in Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq and in the war games conducted overseas. As usual, the "land of the free" is among the slowest of developed countries in allowing gays to serve openly in the military and the primary opposition comes from American conservatives. If the Clinton Administration succeeded on any level in moving toward change, it was in recommending and endorsing the first study of harassment and partially implementing a plan to deal with the results. The Bush Administration has largely allowed that attempt to slide.

The policy is ridiculous, but the con-servative alternative, which would naturally recommend a return to the old official witch-hunt scheme, is even worse. It has been 14 years, there is strong evidence of successful implementation of the GLBT community in militaries among the majority of our strongest allies, and this country should be embarassed that it continues trying to manipulate and humiliate gay Americans by continuing to demand we restrict the rights and responsibilities of our immutable citizenship by adhering to their ridiculous and unjustified insecurities.

---

by: kevinbgoode @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 07:51:17 AM CST

'traditional family values' defined

<>

I think "common" is the wrong word to use.  "Traditional" is more appropriate.

We all know what 'traditional family values' actually entails: promulgating fake standards of sexual morality that (1) no one can actually adhere to, (2) few, if any, would have any desire to adhere to even if they were capable of doing so, (3) everyone lies about actually adhering to in order to make everyone else feel wracked with guilt about not adhering to them, and, most importantly, (4) do not apply to the promulgating class.

In other words, Bill Clinton was upholding 'traditional family values' not only when he committed the sex acts in question but also when he lied about them under oath.  It was the christianists who broke this social contract via their actions against him.

Kat

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 08:14:34 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You got it right there in a perfect nutshell, Kat

my own hat tip to ya. . .:-)

---

by: kevinbgoode @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 09:25:37 AM CST

[ Parent ]

DADT Never Was, Isn't, And Cannot Be Implemented

I'll say one more thing on the topic and then shut up.  There are a thousand ways of asking and a thousand ways of telling.  "Are you gay?" and "I am gay," are only two.  I recall one friend of mine who was in the Navy telling me that more than half his job was pretending to be straight, and dodging Don't Ask/Don't Tell.  What do you do when your fellow service men and so-called "buddies" go to a bar to pick up women?  Go to the local whorehouse?  "So... you coming with us or not?"  That is asking.  "No, I think I'll pass."  That is telling.  "So, fella, you got a girlfriend back home?"  "Uh... well, not really..."  That is asking and telling.  "You like pussy, dontcha?"  "Uh... well, ah... who doesn't!"  And on and on and on.  Not only can you not legislate such behavior, it is goddam insulting that it was even attempted.  Every single study I have read shows that discharges had been fewer under an outright ban, which, of course, is sheer nonsense also... gays and lesbians have always and will always be in our armed forces.  The lame excuse that Clinton couldn't issue a presidential order, as promised, is hogwash.  The equally lame apology that "America isn't ready for it yet," (Hillary has said this about marriage equality) is also a barge-load of manure.  Harry S Truman issued an order desegregating the military, and you can bet America wasn't ready for that, either.  Double irony in that Bill Clinton was a victim of his own Don't Ask/Don't Tell mentality, and that he signed off on the Defense of Marriage Act while his own open and loveless marriage is indefensible.  Are Republicans worse?  Of course they are.  That is why we need Democrats with courage and morals, not poll-takers who tell us what America is and isn't ready for. 

=>The truth usually isn't pretty. Don't blame me for telling it.<=

---

by: Chadster @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 08:24:39 AM CST

I think you are stating the obvious

although I'd like to see the studies on discharges related to an "outright ban". . .and their origination. I don't think SLDN agrees with that position.

The failure of the Republican Administration to implement the proposals to combat harassment in the military speaks volumes, particularly when the Army's incidents declined after they had implemented their own training program. No one here is defending Don't Ask, Don't Tell - and most certainly no one here will defend the outright ban, either.

However, the Republican Congress was certainly instrumental in supporting DOMA as well, including all those members whose own marriages were "open and loveless." We understand the hypocrisy of heterosupremacists in the inconsistency between their words or actions, no matter what party they associate.

One reason the Right loves official regulations is their belief they encourage harassment and official endorsement of stigmatizing others.

---

by: kevinbgoode @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 09:38:56 AM CST

[ Parent ]

newt the dump and hump REPTILE

Newt we heard your statement, I'd like to hear your ex-wife's statements about your dumping her to hump your mistress.

---

by: underbear1 @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 09:40:01 AM CST

Just another Hypocrit

Hearing this "individual" and his enabler Dobson pontificate about how his behavior is in some way "better" or less "bad" than Clintons is simply mind numbing.  This is just another example of how many of our "leaders" are two faced and have long forgotten what morals really are.

I think I am going to be sick.......

---

by: dcmsufan @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 14:46:48 PM CST

God Knows.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as

---

by: BeIamFree @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 22:13:08 PM CST

Hypocrisy Thy Name is Newt

Regardless of the reason[s] Clinton was impeached, the fact of the matter is that Clinton would never have been in the position to lie/flinch/whatever under oath if Newt hadn't gone after him. That Newt went after Clinton for having an extramarital affair in the Oval Office, while Newt himself was screwing his own aide, shows just how hypocritical Newt was. That he considers himself a misunderstood hero because of this, shows just what a turd he is.

---

by: CLD @ Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 10:02:07 AM CDT