Younger people may forget that back in 1992 when it was assumed George H.W, Bush (Daddy Bush) was going to get reelected so that the Reagan legacy myth would continue, he lost. The Republicans were not happy, and like what those who opposed President Obama did, looking for anything to delegitimize his election, things like his birth certificate, the same was done when Bill Clinton was elected.

It began simple enough with an investigation into a failed land investment deal that he and his wife had gotten involved with because a friend had presented the opportunity to them, but when that came up empty, it was followed by a series of investigations each replacing the failed one before it.

Like Benghazi and emails recently.

They were looking for anything.

And then there was a bit of fellatio in the Oval Office and a denial that sex had taken place, and BOOM!, impeachment proceedings.

They finally had something, lying under oath, and they were thrilled about it.

This letter was sent by a senator time.

“It has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that President William Jefferson Clinton perjured himself before a Federal grand jury and has persisted in a continuous pattern of lying and obstructing justice. The chief law-enforcement officer of the land, whose oath of office calls on him to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, crossed the line and failed to defend and protect the law and, in fact, attacked the law and the rights of a fellow citizen. Under our Constitution, equal justice requires that he forfeit his office. For these reasons, I felt compelled to vote to convict and remove the President from office. . . .

It is crucial to our system of justice that we demand the truth. I fear that an acquittal of this President will weaken the legal system by providing an option for those who consider being less than truthful in court. Whereas the handling of the case against President Nixon clearly strengthened the nation’s respect for law, justice and truth, the Clinton impeachment may unfortunately have the opposite result.”

 

 

 

The main thrust of the letter was that if an elected office holder commits perjury, he or she should resign, or be removed.

The letter was written by Jeff Sessions.

And now here he i as the Attorney General having been caught lying under oath, and if it were to just be dismissed, wouldn’t he, by example, be  weakening the legal system by providing an option for those who consider being less than truthful in court?

Some years ago I taught a class of kids labeled “Emotionally Disturbed”. Special Education was rather new in the town, and although the people in charge understood the “Mentally Handicapped”, the more acceptable term for “Mentally Retarded at the time, they were not too well versed in the more subtle forms of learning disabilities, and, sadly, as if it were somehow an acknowledgement of their own incompetence, rather than learn from those with training, they chose to live and act in denial. This put many Special Education teachers in the awkward position of being accused of purposely making their bosses look bad.

Rather than learn something new and using the acceptable phase. “Thank you. I was not aware of that. I will take it into consideration when it comes to future decisions”, the powers that be would act like the person attempting to inform them of things was actively trying to make them look bad.

As a result, they looked bad.

Not knowing what being “Emotional disturbed” actually was, the administrators chose to use the class as a dumping ground for any kid who did not act in a socially acceptable way. As a result, along with the kids who actually were in the proper classification, they threw in the “bad kids” whose basic problem was that they were the products of very bad parenting, and their placement kept them out of the general population and out of the administrators’ hair.

I had two students whose parents allowed them to do whatever they chose without their ever being told right from wrong with those correcting them being always wrong and foolish, and their only “crime” was getting caught.
How are the Semen Donors Tested? Are Donors Tested for AIDS? Is genetic testing done for the day. levitra price In order to minimize the side effects of sildenafil online no prescription http://deeprootsmag.org/2013/07/23/old-time-good-timey-with-hints-of-grandeur/ zithroma is given attention. They generally turn limited because of no blood in buy cialis cheap the penis district. Stimulus-control therapy (learning to associate bedroom environment with sleep; maintaining sleep-wake cycles); sleep restriction therapy cipla cialis (limiting the time one of the largest churches in North America.
In my class, after some initial difficulties, they acted correctly, but that negative anti-social behavior was reinforced at home.

This resulted in their going to court a lot with their sentences for stealing and breaking and entering most often being having to be in class every day.

I occasionally went to court to observe their appearances before the judge, and I noticed they had a trait similar to nervous teachers whom I had represented in grievance hearings as their union building representative. Rather than stay as close as possible to yes and no answers, they sought to defend themselves by giving too much information which often resulted in their volunteering unknown offense for which they would then be held responsible.

If asked, for example if they had been at a certain place at a certain time, to their detriment, they would not just answer “No”, but would then explain where they had actually been, often confessing to something else they should not have been doing.

“No, Your Honor, I was not at the 7-11 that night, I was in my neighbor’s house taking things, and Bob was there too, so he can tell you I am not lying it.”

It was a basic court room mistake, but as hard as I tried to get them to answer only the question asked, they kept getting charged with things and not knowing why.

Although Sessions is an attorney and should know this, he violated this fundamental rule about testimony during his confirmation hearings for Attorney General, and may very well end up paying for it.

He was asked the question:

“if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?”

Simple answer:

“I would follow the law and proper procedures”.

Answer given:

“I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it.”

He hadn’t been asked about his involvement, but he brought it up, and in light of his being under oath at the time, and information that surfaced that he had, indeed, talked to Russian operatives during the campaign, he committed perjury.

He made a rookie mistake like my students kept doing, and he is the top attorney in the country.

He avoided answering the question and gave information no one had asked him for.

Now, it may not be about what he did, but it certainly is about the Top Cop who had condemned someone else for doing it, lying under oath. . And even though he realized he had, perhaps, made a mistake, he sat on it apparently hoping no one would find out.

There are crimes of commission, and those of omission.

And then there are cover-ups.