Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:03, 25 May 2005

NPOV Dispute Discussion

The Impeachment section is NPOV disputed because of the following statements:

• "The charges had been rushed through the House in order to take advantage of the votes of so-called 'lame-duck' Republican congressmen, and did not reflect the recommendations of the Starr Report."

• "Success in the Senate was not anticipated, due to presumed partisans voting if for no other reasons"

• "The charges were reorganized apparently to maximize the opportunities for sensationalism and the humiliation of the President"

The section should be checked for pro-Clinton bias.

Other Discussion

An event mentioned in this article is an August 17 selected anniversary

oral-anal? Did clinton tossed monica salad or vice versa?

I'm also confused, I didn't read the Starr report ... When the article says, "", including oral sex in both directions, "" does this mean, vaginal-anal lingus or does it mean felatio performed on Clinton, cunnilingus performed on Monica? Maybe these technical terms are clearer, yet unoffensive enough for the article. ""both directions"" seems too colloquial.

____

  The article states:

"The issue was greatly confused by an unusual definition for sexual contact that was ordered during the initial questioning which led to the perjury allegations. "Sexual contact" was defined as contact where the man touches the woman for her gratification; no action by the woman for the man's gratification was considered sexual contact."

  This is simply not true, and is completely biased to anyone who has
  followed the case.  This is the core of the definition of sexual
  relations, as stated in the deposition:

"Definition of Sexual Relations For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in “sexual relations” when the person knowingly engages in or causes – 1) contact with the genitalia, arms, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.

“Contact” means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing"

  Clinton was asked to respond to the definition as stated in (1).
  You will notice that it does not describe male or female contact,
  but "a person" on "any person".

"Legal opinion is divided as to whether President Clinton's denials--though perhaps ungallant--were legal perjury, though he certainly violated the requirement to be clear about what he was saying. However, legal opinion has been almost unanimous that a criminal prosecution on charges of perjury would almost certainly fail."

  Judge Wright held that Clinton had violated the law, and held him
  in contempt with a fine.  I dunno if that qualifies for being
  "legally unanimous" on charges of perjury.

  John Abbott

Is it really a common misconception that Clinton was removed from office? I can't imagine: after all....he was still there through the end. I have never heard it was commonly misunderstood that Clinton was convicted, but that I can see as more plausible. Pakaran, can you help me understand your addition? Jwrosenzweig 18:38, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, it's that I've heard some people saying he wasn't "impeached." He was - he just happened to be (essentially) found innocent. I also see bizarre statements sometimes like "no president has ever been successfully impeached." Pakaran. 18:41, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I see where you're coming from. In that case, I think I'll be bold and fiddle with the wording a little. Revert me if you like. :) Jwrosenzweig 18:43, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Have fun :) Pakaran. 18:43, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Looks good to me :) Pakaran. 18:48, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Britney-bashin'

Come on, now: is the reference to Britney Spears really necessary or notable? There isn't even a quote saying that she personally believes this to be the case, and even if there were, why should we have a concurring opinion from Joe Random Celebrity and not a theologian or ethicist or something?

others who fell from grace

during this process, weren't there a few congress people who had to resign from their posts because of impending sexual scandals of their own? what are the details of that? Kingturtle 22:15, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

International Affairs -- "Some allege..."

Why does this section belong in the article? You can't prove nor disprove that 'wag the dog' was Clinton's real motivation; neither I, you, nor the pundits who made those allegations had any special peek at his thoughts.

Barring any admission by Clinton himself, these allegations are not now nor will they ever be factual. The allegations were never the basis for any punitive action toward Clinton; it's not newsworthy on that basis. It's pure speculation, mostly from people with axes to grind and money to make.