stevil
Godless and without morals
I see it quite differently to you.
As I understand it you are focused on whether a law was broken.
Breaking a law being a line that would disqualify a President from their job.
- If law broken then remove president
- If law not broken then don't remove president
Most of my working life I have worked in the corporate world. There are many things that I could do that would be considered legal, but unethical. For example, if I were tasked with product selection or vendor selection and I had a strong friendship with a product seller or vendor and I chose that product or vendor based on my friendship rather than on merit and I didn't disclose my conflict of interest. This would show that I am not acting with the best interests of my employer. This would be legal but unethical. I wouldn't get criminally charged but I would lose my job. Rightly so, because how can that company trust me when I don't act with the best interests of the company? I would have proven that I can't do the job that I was hired to do.
Let's say, instead I have an affair, cheating on my wife. Should my company be concerned? Should they fire me for that? It's really not their business. It doesn't affect my ability to carry out my job. If they ask me about my alleged affair, I should have every right not to answer them. It's none of their business. But let's say that they force me to answer (under oath) and my answer will be made public for my wife to see it.
If my answer is Yes or No, it makes no difference to my employment, my capability to carryout my job. If my answer is Yes, I get into big trouble with my wife, she will get hurt and will hate me.
Personally I think Clinton was put into a very difficult position (I think the investigators shouldn't have been allowed to ask the question as to whether he had an affair or not) and should have refused to answer the question, or should have owned up with his wife first.
I don't consider Clinton lying about an affair to be a threat to his role as President of the country. It's not a threat to national security, it's not a corrupt use of national resources or power.
The lying while under oath bit is more serious. It is a crime for sure, and going by the slippery slope argument should you let people lying under oath to get away with it?
It is important for investigators and trials to get accurate information in order to come to informed conclusions. Lying under oath is a form of obstruction of justice. For example during an investigation of collaboration with Russia, if a person is asked if they have had recent contact with Russians and they say no, then this is intentionally obstructing justice. It is pertinent for the investigators to know who has had contact with Russians, when and why. But in Clinton's case, I fail to see why the investigators needed to know if Clinton was having an affair. His lawyers should have objected to the question.
Under today's conditions, (unlike the Starr investigation) the Justice Department are not able to indict a sitting president, and may choose not to make a determination of wrong doing. (But even if the investigator does make that determination, this person isn't a judge, they are an investigator and will be likely biased towards finding wrongdoing). A court trial isn't had for the sitting president, so there is never any official legal determination as to guilt in breaking a law. So given all this, how can Congress throw out a sitting president based on whether a law is broken or not?
With regards to the allegations against Donald Trump, these are far more serious for your country than whether a president was having an affair. If true, the extortion of an ally by withholding national assets in the form of aid in order to get a foreign country to interfere in the next USA election and give the current president an unfair advantage is very much corruption and abuse of power and unethical and possibly unconstitutional. In my view it is much more dangerous for your country than whether your president is having a personal affair and lying about it.
Upvote
0
