Originally posted by Mountain Man
View Post
That is Clinton's defense. But that defense has no teeth if they did not testify to the same under oath. Or if they did not describe the interactions as consensual to friends.
The point of my post was NOT to defend Clinton (though that is consistent with how you interpret any post that pushes back against a Republican or your own POV)
The point was to say 'what is good for the goose is good for the gander'. You can't objectively (or morally) use two opposing standards of proof, one for Democrats and the other for Republicans.
Jim
Comment