Slashdot Mirror

No, there's a lot more to it than that

Nope, just more hysterical partisan bullshit.

and I suggest you do more reading

I suggest you try and find an old copy of the Clinton Chronicles on VHS, where Republicans accused the Clintons of everything from having Arkansas state police run drugs to having people murdered. Actually, you can skip the VHS since it popped up on Youtube in the same Google search - and you can see those deranged Birchers using the exact same "where there's smoke, there's fire" argument Democrats are aiming at Trump right now.

If you look at what Russia did in the Ukraine before they invaded it,

You mean gave Ukraine a cheap gas deal and a low interest loan free of any of the IMF's austerity-crushing provisions? And Russia hasn't invaded shit. Years of accusations pulled from Right Sector Ukrainian accounts, but not a single satellite photo showing Russian troops. This subject is a lose-lose for western exceptionalists, because even if Russia did invade Ukraine, it would be a million times more justified as the U.S. overthrew the Ukrainian government. It's not like the U.S. would sit by with its thumb up its ass, if the USSR overthrew the government of Canada after Russia extended the Warsaw Pact around U.S. borders.

but for the people charged with keeping the country secure, they need to step up and ask the tough questions

Wow. Was that said in your best Charlie Sheen "winning!" voice? No, what's happening now is that there is no evidence to support Russian hacking and there never was. Which would mean that the media and almost all of the Democratic party were going to have to admit they were hysterical McCarthyist shitbags.

Well, we couldn't have that, now could we? So now they're trying to find nefarious connections and whining when people start taking the 5th in response to a witch hunt. It's a direct mirror of what Republicans did in the 90's - spend a hundred million dollars investigating the Clintons on everything from Whitewater to drug running to murdering Vince Foster. It all turned to bullshit in their hands, so rather than admit to being asshole witch hunters, they settled on a manufactured sexual perjury charge. Which Clinton wasn't even guilty of using the court's definition of "sexual relations."

That's what Democrats are doing. Finally getting some revenge on a Republican president for all the nonsense they went through 20 years ago. Except they became what they hated in the process.

And I'm sure the women who've been raped, robbed and murdered in their own homes feel that their treatment by law enforcement has been stellar and that their tormentors are all brought to justice.

Not as much as the women who've been robbed and murdered in their own homes by their own firearms. There are 2.7 times more of them. And certainly not as much as the women who have been murdered by people they knew with their own firearms. Thee are 21 TIMES more of them.

Unless you have LOTS of money to bribe^H^H^H^convince politicians and public officials with, you're a fucking non-entity in the US.

The truly funny AND frightening thing is that you actually think your gun is going to make a difference.

Bill Clinton engaged in systematic sexual harassment

Baseless tautology.

Any corporate CEO can get a blow job from an intern and it's no problem

When it's freely offered? Someone's jealous.

Yeah. Right. Just a blow job.

No, not just a blow job. It was a pathetic witch hunt that settled on a sex scandal after years and tens of millions investigating and re-investigating Whitewater and Vince Foster. Then Scooter Libby came along and showed us just how much wingers actually care about perjury.

The CIA is not just an intelligence agency, to claim so is naive.

How about all this shit they have done?

Just a little taste of how bad they can be.

Look here. The US has been a bad guy for many, many years. The last three years have been better than average, I suspect. We've drawn down involvement in illegal wars abroad, and tried to be pro-democracy in the middle east, even against our real economic interests, or the interests of our allies.

Another interesting source (that I just watched on netflix) is here: William Colby. This guy was a real spook, was involved in OSS work during WWII, early vietnam, CIA director under Nixon and Ford, who basically came clean during the Ford administration to congress. Got fired because of it (they hired George HW Bush to replace him!). Think of the things the CIA was doing back then! Assassinations, overthrows of governments, covert shit we still don't know about, and probably never will.

The NSA thing is basically just business as usual. Nearly everybody in congress who had to know about it supports it. You don't think the CIA was tapping phones during the cold war? They just weren't as good at it. If tapping phones is the worst thing they do, I'd be amazed and pleased. If the Snowden release gives them a bit more trouble making mischief, enjoy the respite. They'll be back at it again next week.

"Woman shoots intruders" makes a good story, "woman shot by intruders" is just a regular day in the USA.

Nevertheless, here's a couple of articles:
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/131161/
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/noble-la/TR15JA061K07R7VC6
http://omaha.com/article/20120912/NEWS/120919892

Continuing is pointless without some statistics. The report you link to has some, and prints in bold "The data set contains only 11 stories out of 4,699 where a criminal took a gun away from a defender; the reverse was reported more than 20 times more often.", but in the text notes that this is because the dataset didn't collect data where the defender was injured.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-kellermann.htm shows a different side.

Frankly, I don't care to debate this -- I'm happy with the situation in my country, presumably you like your country's approach, and arguing over the Web is rarely useful.

To paraphrase NDT, the great thing about facts is that they are true whether or not wingnuts believe in them. And it's a fact that blowjobs did not fall under the definition of "sexual relations" by Judge Susan Webber.

Sad day for you.

Sorry, this is a common myth, but Hitler was NOT elected. Instead he used a combination of backroom deals, politics, and outright thuggery to seize power. http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitlerdemo.htm

Sigh.. Clinton lied

He did not lie as I just proved you. The court accepted a set of parameters of what would amount to "sexual relations". Blow jobs fell outside of those set of parameters. Parameters set by the judge you cite, who also rule that whatever happened between Clinton and Monica was irrelevant to whatever happened with Clinton and Jones.

You're wrong. Clinton gave a truthful response in court as to whether or not he had "sexual relations" with Lewisnsky. Deal with it.

What you think of the law is irrelevant to a law being in existence.

Hand waving. If it's not relevant, it's not perjury. Deal with that, too.

I do not care if it is Bush, Clinton, Obama, Reagan, or George Washington, it is wrong. So take your partisan but hurt "but they said something bad about Clinton" rant and shove it somewhere more appropriate.

Your projection on butthurt over being called out on your selective standards and morals is noted. The simple fact is that you wingers started and stopped caring about perjury when it was a Republican administration doing it just as you stopped caring when the draft dodgers were Republicans.

You, and your hypocritical twins the Obots, can blow that out your asses.

Back when I lived in Minnesota there was a big todo over welfare moms having more children simply to get an increase in welfare aid.

Which is almost certainly a complete fabrication on the part of conservatives. State aid is never enough to pay for all the costs a child incurs. Did they have any actual data on how often they claim this occurs? Or did they just make something up (in the grand tradition of Ronald Reagan), and harp on it until people thought it was a real problem?

I'm pretty sure the standard for exploding vehicles is the Ford Pinto.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Pinto.htm

Nope, we just marched right in there and overthrew the government. Except Obama found some sinister way to make it seem as if no troops actually went into the country!

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone here, but history has proven you don't need an army to intervene.

I suspect all forms of power structures are vulnerable to corruption. Companies, religion, unions, and governments all have corruption problems.

If I look at the "Corruption Perceptions Index" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index , it looks like democratic governments have less issues with corruption?

I do agree that Capitalism has serious issues. http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Einstein.htm

You're effectively arguing: "Patents don't kill open source, people do".

This statement is true in the same way as the guns-related one, and it detracts from the discussion at hand in the same way the guns-related one does.

A decent illustration of how this is irrelevant and counterproductive here http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-gunskill.htm and I'm sure the /. readership has no problems translating this example to the open source domain.

I need to see some data. For example, handgun data suggest that Switzerland enjoys similarly high levels of handgun violence. I'm certainly no expert on the topic, but the other data I've seen also suggest that Switzerland has high levels of firearm violence.

"There is a direct correlation between welfare net and crime" [citation needed]. To the best of my knowledge, the relationship is unclear. You could have cited a harvard study, but it does not correct for the single parent family connection that the Cato link specifically mentioned. It's really fun to note that in support of the conclusion that greater income inequality causes bad outcomes, that article relies on citation 10, which defines income inequality as bad.

Given that level of concern and wariness, I doubt he'd be "full of himself".

Also, the CIA and other TLAs are very very good at doing much more nasty things.

I'd say, the combined probability of each logical linkage and Occam's Razor imply that the most obvious and clear answer is probably the most correct, and yours is a bit more complex than the GP comment.

What is comes down to is, it's a lot more complicated than that. There isn't a single parameter (taxes) that determines economic growth or recession. Some models may predict it, but that doesn't mean they are accurate. Here is a link I posted in another comment thread,

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm

Citation needed.

Not really for anybody with a brain and a pair of working eyes. There is a strong correlation of lower taxes and economic prosperity throughout history of USA and the world.

Uh, no, it isn't that clear cut. If you think it is, show me the data. This argumentum ad populum, not supported by any real data. Here are two analyses, with data, that do not support your above statement.

http://www.angrybearblog.com/2007/09/tax-rates-and-economic-growth-look-at.html

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm

Same old story...

It's not a justification. There's an observed correlation in multiple studies between both absolute and relative lower income and crime rates, especially theft and burglary.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-harvardberkeley.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9683374

Pretending there's "good" and "bad" people is incredibly naïf, and it's not validated by real data. By the way, there's also no real evidence of capital punishment being an effective deterrence to crime, no matter what petty revengers claim.

As Henry Buckle said, "Society prepares the crime, the criminal commits it".

Thanks. Background materials:

Myth: Democracy elected Hitler to power.

Fact: Hitler used backroom deals, not votes, to come to power.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitlerdemo.htm

German presidential election, 1932
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_presidential_election,_1932

Now, if we could get THIS THREAD back ON TOPIC :)

I think somebody's saying they they lied under oath.

There's a correlation-is-not-causation problem with the Japanese/African IQ observation, the conclusion you're drawing is moderately racist.

It's more than moderately racist. And beliefs of that sort become self-fulfilling prophecies when widely held. IQ studies that rigorously controlled for the effect of poverty, culture and societal prejudice are few and far between, and I've not heard of any that showed any significant disadvantage for a particular ethnic group.

IIRC, the cumulative effect of switching every "bad" intelligence linked gene we have found to it's "good" variety (excluding serious genetic disorders like Down's Syndrome and the like) only accounts for about a two point boost in IQ. Granted, we've probably missed quite a few, but there is zero evidence that intelligence linked genes are not close to uniformly distributed.

3. The welfare state, Progressivism's compromise between full blown socialism and the old Classical Liberalism they are seeking always to supplant. Bring up a kid watching mom walk to the mailbox on the first of the month and you can forget em seeing the value of getting an education and a job.

Welfare pays very little per month. http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfareincentive.htm

3) No he wasn't.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitlerdemo.htm

This is a typical article on WSJ where the purpose is get people mad at the disadvantage. You're a Conservative, filthy rich, and working hard all your life when this homeless bozo is enjoying a fine life. I'm surprised they don't bring back Ronald Reagan's Welfare Queen to beat up in public square.

I have said this before, I don't want to ban guns but I think more regulation is needed

Other sources argue the Swiss may have a low murder rate to to higher gun regulation.
Your statement that the Swiss have a huge gun culture is true. But the US still exceeds all other countries per capita. The Swiss come in third.

I was curious about the motives for murder in the US. I found these stats on
why murders happen in the US. Not one motives stats "Due to Video Game Influence" which leads me to my original point: a better (imperfect, but still better) approach to controlling teen violence is modifying gun laws NOT regulating video games.

First of all, if you reread my post carefully you will see the phrase "less morally corrupt" preceding the presidents I list. Let's put Bush and Obama aside for the moment as the debate about Bush is so partisan and I haven't made up my mind about Obama yet. I'm not trying to put any of them at the level of genocidiers or call them fascist or anything like that. However, it is an indisputable fact that America/American Presidents have in the past backed extremely corrupt, evil dictators in order to gain more influence in a region (and done other heinous things like lie about the Gulf of Tonkin or any number of other incidences). That's where the similarity is: whether it is a maniacal dictator exterminating a race or a US president backing a regime that goes on to murder thousands or millions of its own people, either way, in the pursuit of power and domain for oneself and one's political machine you have committed atrocities and made the world that much worse. I'd say there's a good argument we could do without that sort of leader.

Re: the rest of your comment, what do you think of these figures? It seems to me federal welfare in the US works pretty efficiently. Anyway, I would wager that corporate welfare poses a much larger threat to America than the more or less necessary social welfare programs. (I don't really see that the rest there is on topic, but maybe I missed something.)

It's not a matter of someone wishing America to go belly up against someone wishing America to soar like eagle.

It is for Rush.

It's a matter of what is (something Clinton had trouble defining, BTW).

Not really.

As far as history has shown, socialism (and if Democrats are in charge, that's the way we are going) has never been good for economy

Socialism hasn't failed, it's just been continually overthrown by the CIA.

and if Democrats are in charge, that's the way we are going

LOL. Today's Democrats are well to the right of Richard Nixon. If the Republican party keeps moving in the direction it's on, all you guys are going to be socialists too in another 20 years.

On the other hand, if the economy benefits from the socialist policies passed by Democrats, then, well, it will be a shock to most economists and we will have learned something new.

To the Rand fanboys, maybe. But it wont come as a shock at all to the other 95% of economists who live in the reality based community. The financial sector has had deregulation and tax reduction up the wazoo - how's that been working out for us again? Should have the biggest profits in the history of the universe, right?

to own up to their mistakes rather than passing the blame off as they have with CRA

There is no blame with the CRA. None. Zero. Nadda. Zip. Just conservative slight of hand to shift responsibility from failed conservative policies onto minorities. Funny how often that happens.

Suppose I agree (I don't) that New Deal was what got America out of Great Depression (it wasn't

It was. The New Deal put millions of Americans back to work, reducing unemployment dramatically while increasing GDP. But as Ciggy points out, why is that massive government spending on the military does work to stimulate an economy, but massive government spending on infrastructure will not?

From those (preposterous) suppositions, does it follow that because a little socialism was good, a whole lot of it would be better? No. U.S.S.R. proved the contrary nearly 2 decades ago.

You could of course say the same thing about Libertarian goals and Hooverism, only in this case the analogy would actually be applicable. Socialism != Communism.

So that people don't die of horrible diseases easily treatable only if they had a little bit of money. These things don't help the economy or promote general welfare (as defined by amount of "wealth" in the society)

Of course they do. Who does more for the economy: a worker at home in bed from a treatable condition, or that worker going to his job? Hmmm.

generous to those minorities too lazy to lift themselves up.

Filled in the rest of that for you.

But, just because these things make the society look nicer doesn't mean we should argue for even more socialism.

Find me a socialist who wants more government control for the sake of more government control, which is as foolish as wanting more deregulation for the sake of more deregulation.

but so far it seems like obama is still campaigning

More like he's still drinking the bipartisan kool aid. Why he thinks the party that manufactured a bogus perjury charge against a sitting president will now be reasonable is beyond me.

And beyond that, going after the Busco criminals is not only the right thing to do, it's a political winner. If the Dems really went after Republican lawbreaking, the GOP would soon be joining the Whigs in the dustbin of political history.

you admit that the press took joy in beating on Bush.

[Citation needed]

I never said he didn't do any of the things that they said he did, just that they enjoyed beating on him.

Which is the revisionist bullshit in question. If the press "enjoyed beating" on Bush, he never would have been elected in the first place, much less re-elected.

Feel free to think what you want about the war, but He couldn't have gotten us into the war, or funded it without the help of congressional dems and republicans.

Oh, many Dems deserve a lot of blame for handing Bush a loaded gun. But it was Bush's decision to fire it, and Bush's decision to lie us into war in the first place.

Speaking of lying, it was David Gregory, new host of Meet the Press, that said:

The right questions were asked. I think there's a lot of critics -- and I guess we can count Scott McClellan as one -- who thinks that if we did not debate the president, debate the policy in our role as journalists, if we did not stand up and say, "This is bogus," and "You're a liar," and "Why are you doing this?" that we didn't do our job. And I respectfully disagree. It's not our role.

No, Mr. Hack, that's exactly the role of the 4th estate.

Hell, Hilary voted for the war

Yes, she did. And it's the reason why she's not president right now instead of Obama.

Bill Clinton took a lot of respect away from the office by lying under oath.

What a surprise, you're 100% wrong. In fact, under the courts definition, he would have been lying if he had said he'd had "sexual relations" with Monica, as he didn't stick his cock in her.

The impeachment of Bill Clinton didn't happen because he "lied under oath", it happened because Republicans wanted to impeach him. When they couldn't nail him for fraud (Whitewater), murder (Vince Foster), or even a parking ticket, they settled on a manufactured perjury charge. Real justice would have been sending Starr and the Republicans in Congress to jail for malicious prosecution.

And just to prove how full of shit the GOP is on the issue of perjury, you had the same people arguing for Clinton's removal from office arguing for a pardon for Scooter Libby's perjury conviction. Hell, Fred Thompson, who voted to convict in the Senate, gave a speech where he passionately called for the rule of law, and passionately called for a pardon for Scooter Libby.

I would have preferred the later

What a surprise.

Get off of your sanctimonious high horse before you fall off and hurt yourself.

Blow your hypocritical double standards right out your ass, you pathetic partisan hack.

That's why this link is teh awesome.

You don't follow politics much do you? Clinton got impeached for perjury, not for diddling the unattractive intern.

Wrong. He was impeached because after the Republican Congress couldn't nail him for fraud (Whitewater) or murder (Vince Foster), or a parking ticket, they settled on a manufactured perjury charge.

And Clinton didn't even lie, much less commit perjury.

Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster, kid.

While his lying is NOTHING near to what Nixon, reagan, or W did, he still lied.

If the question is noneofyourfuckingbusiness, you have no right to expect an honest response.

but he did lie under oath. There is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.

Wrong. Unless you can literally read his mind, there is no way you can prove he lied. And even if he did lie, it's still not perjury as the lie has to be relevant to the case at hand, and the judge ruled that Monica was irrelevant to the Jones case. We have courts to catch and punish the guilty, not make the innocent jump through hoops until you can trip them up and make a bogus perjury charge.

Clinton was under investigation for PERJURING himself in a completely different sexual harassment suit brought against him, not for getting a BJ in the White House.

Republicans didn't investigate Clinton because they had probable cause, but because they wanted to investigate him and remove him from office by any means necessary. They couldn't find any actual crimes, so instead they went with a manufactured perjury charge. You can't even proved he lied, unless you can physically read minds. Secondly, even if he did lie, it's not perjury because the lie has to be RELEVANT. As the judge ruled that whatever happened between Monica and Bill was irrelevant to the Jones case, it was. not. perjury. Period.

Yes, seriously. Just recall Bill Clinton's jockeying to dodge baseless Republican witch hunts left and right...

Fixed that, too. Things to keep in mind:

1) Republicans investigated and re-investigated everything from White Water to Vince Foster.
2) They came up with jack squat.
3) They finally had to settle on a manufactured perjury charge (which Clinton didn't even do)
4) The worst thing they could pin on him was a manufactured perjury charge.

Let's set Ken Starr on your ass with a $60 million+ budget to destroy your life and see how you you look, mmmkay? Not to mention the enormous hypocrisy over throwing Probable Cause and "innocent until proven guilty" out the window for Clinton, yet we know for a fact that Bush has broken laws, treaties, and the Constitution.

When I show how corrupt Clinton is

You haven't. Even with the much ballyhooed Marc Rich pardon, Rich had to pay a fine far greater than the amount he supposedly dodged ($100 million) and would still be open to civil lawsuits.

The tactic might actually have some validity if I were a Republican, but I am not.

If it blathers like a Republican, is ignorant like a Republican, and couldn't make an honest argument to save it's soul just like a Republican, it's probably a Republican.

liberals like to show corruption in the Republican party as if it were some kind of counter, some excuse, for Clinton's corruption.

No, it's asking Republicans to be consistent for two consecutive seconds, a monumental feat they have yet to achieve. Like how military service was vital in 1992 when Clinton was running against Herbert Walker Bush, yet irrelevant when W. Bush was running against McCain and Gore in 2000, and Kerry in 2004. Or how serious lying under oath (which Clinton didn't actually do) was in 1998 vs when Scooter Libby was convicted of perjury by a Republican prosecutor and a Republican judge. Hell, Fred Thompson, who voted to impeach Clinton, gave a speech where he passionately called for the rule of law and passionately called for a pardon for Scooter Libby.

Or more to the point, how experience was vital for the presidency according to McCain up to last week, yet now is completely irrelevant.

Any attempt at correlation between crime and anything else certainly does depend on what's included in the definition of "crime". I'm glad you also noticed that the fact that the US murder rate is more than twice that in Sweden does imply that there's something else included under "crime" to offset that, and there is certainly no reason to belittle me because I expressed interest in what that might be. (And my comment was no more off-topic than the parent.)

Since you couldn't be bothered, I did a bit of research and it turns out that Sweden has quite a high rate of assaults. I find this a bit surprising, because it doesn't seem that violent here to me, but I've only lived here for a little over a year, so it's quite possible I'm missing something.

This report, while slightly dated, might also be of interest.

It's my understanding that tax cuts really do increase revenue,

The late, great Steve Kangas takes that myth on with statistics.

It normally goes without saying that Democrats will spend less than Republicans.

What? Did you get that backwards? I agree that republicans have lost a LOT of thier small government luster over the last 8 years but democrats still want to outspend them.

Take a look at the bar graphs of the national debt on this page:

http://brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html

Notice the change between 1980 and 1990. Compare that to the change between 1990 and 2000. Then notice the change after 2000.

Myth: Democrats in Congress created the deficit

Err, that ideal died in 1997 or so when Congress basically said "oh, he only committed perjury about a blowjob - everyone does that..."

You can't prove that Clinton lied during testimony. But even if he did lie, he still didn't commit perjury, since a lie has to be relevant to the case at hand. Since the judge ruled that whatever happened between Monica and Bill was irrelevant to the Jones case, it was impossible for Bill to have committed perjury on the subject.

And seriously, you're putting a non-lie about a blowjob on the same playing field as torture, spying on American citizens in America without warrants, and holding people in jail indefinitely without trials? Were you born without a sense of proportion?

I am so sick of this. Clinton LIED under oath in a federal court after taking an oath to tell the truth. He lied ABOUT sex.

No, he didn't. The impeachment of Bill Clinton wasn't about perjury, it was about removing him from office by any means necessary. In this country, we're supposed to investigate crimes, not people. Starr and the Republicans in the House should have been thrown in jail for malicious prosecution.

You have the right to your own opinion, but you don't have the right to your own set of facts. Fact #1: you can't even prove Clinton lied in the first place. Fact #2: a lie has to be relevant to the case for it to be perjury. Since the judge ruled that whatever happened between Bill and Monica was irrelevant to the Jones case, it was impossible for him to commit perjury on the subject. Fact #3: it was Robert Jordan who allegedly pressured Lewinsky, so Clinton wouldn't have been guilty of obstruction of justice in any case.

Fact #4: the only "justice" obstructed was the right of Republicans to investigate people rather than crimes. Which of course isn't justice at all. Starr and the Republicans in the House should have wound up in jail for malicious prosecution.

The point is not that he banged another woman. But that he lied under oath.

No, the point was the Republicans were determined to remove him from office by any means necessary. Because under the judge's definition he didn't even lie. And even if he did lie, the lie has to be relevant to the case at hand. And since the judge ruled that whatever happened between Bill and Monica was irrelevant to the Jones case, it was impossible for him to commit perjury on the subject.

perjury: the one everyone remembers, lying under oath regarding sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky

They can't even prove he lied. And even if he did lie, it has to be relevant to the case at hand to be perjury. Since the judge ruled that what happened between Bill and Monica was irrelevant to the Jones case, it was impossible for Clinton to commit perjury on the subject of Monica.

obstruction of justice: the one everyone seems to forget, regarding Clinton's pressuring of Lewinsky to give false testimony in court and obstruct the investigation

Which was of course even more baseless. In the first place, it was Robert Jordan who was alleged to have talked to Lewinsky, not Clinton. In the second place, just what justice would have been obstructed, exactly? The ability of Republicans to freely engage in a witch hunt and remove a president from office by any means necessary?

Regular people go to jail for that kind of thing.

Regular people don't have prosecutors engaging in endless fishing expeditions with no probable cause. And, given the fact that Clinton was following the judge's definition of "sexual relations" to the letter, she's rather full of shit.

You can't even prove Clinton lied in the first place. And even if he did lie, it has to be a relevant lie to be perjury. And since the judge ruled that what happened between Bill and Monica wasn't relevant to the Jones case, it would have been impossible for Clinton to commit perjury on the subject.

Clinton's impeachment wasn't about perjury, it was about Republicans trying to remove him from office by any means necessary.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated