Those Johns getting busted on those streets in LA or NYC will tell you it is most definitely illegal.  Just because it happens, doesn't make it legal.  Per Bob and Tom, the good-looking girls are all cops.  Don't let your attraction to Bill make you think that everyone would want to go to bed with him.  Don't forget the testimony from the Jones trial revealed he wasn't too well endowed and he's shown he doesn't have any class.   

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."  - Sir Winston Churchill

Nobody beleived it?

Oh please, I believe it, a lot of people believed it. He got impeached for lying about it.

Jer:Henry Hyde and Casper Weinberger have no bearing on the Clinton perjury issue.  Inclusion of them or anyone else not involved is a tactic of mitigation and obfuscation.  The issue is whether Clinton committed a crime or crimes as described by law.  Each of us can find example after example of so and so who did thus and such to support whatever colorization of the story we want.  The bottom line is whether Clinton committed a crime or crimes, which was determined in the affirmative, and then what his punishment should be, which was contested.

At some point, certain behaviour is codified as criminal beyond which it is then a matter of degree of criminality and its resultant stepwise punishment guidelines.  It is in this degree of criminality and its punishment that context has a role.

Just because the Jones case did not meet its burden of proof does not excuse perjured testimony.  No matter how bogus a case may be, it is incumbent of the witness to give truthful testimony.  Clinton does not get a free ride because the case was to be dismissed or settled outside of court.

Court mandated punishment may take a variety of forms including loss of freedom and fines.  Fines are used not only to compensate a victim but also as a powerful punishment to the guilty - people are pained to give up money.  That Jones asked for a specific amount was to show Clinton the seriousness of her intent and to punish him as well.  I would imagine that to a rape victim, monetary punishment may not be the only punishment they want for their assailant.  Owing to the deep pockets of the Clinton's, money was hardly a devastating punishment.  I imagine Jones wanted more and that is why she did not allow the case to be swept under the carpet as fast as possible.  She wanted to hurt Clinton, to humiliate him as he (alleged) did to her by raping her.  Makes perfect sense to me.  Additionally, if Jones was a scammer, she would have taken the money and run.  That she didn't tells me there is more to the story than grifting.

Anytime a person is deposed or is questioned in court by the other side's attorney, it is always a fishing expedition with the goal of catching the witness in a trap of their own words.  Clinton as an attorney knew this well, and may have had a false sense of security which lead to his misadventure with parsed words, etc.

Clinton's consensual, non-subordinate, adulterous behaviour is private and does not automatically mean he is unable to do his duties as president... as long as there are no security breaches or situations of compromise leading to blackmail, etc.  There still is the sticky question of sexual relations with a subordinate which didn't gain traction.  He still has a fiduciary duty to uphold the law of the land and should be a role model for the people of the country - a heavy burden but one shouldn't run for the office unless you are prepared to walk the walk.  And, context having relative importance, lied under oath and deserved severe penalty as proscribed by law precisely because of his position of trust.

Rationalizing unethical, immoral and/or illegal behaviour because Europeans do it or some other politician did it too leads to a continual shifting of acceptable behaviour in society, always towards more crude and selfish endpoints. 

Exactly where do you think the line in the sand should be drawn?  Is it ok to lie under oath?  How do you explain this to a child so that they understand the "nuance" but remain truthful/honorable in their daily lives?  Part of the Clinton legacy is at least one generation of Americans believes "oral sex" is not "sex" and are quite casual in performing it on peers.  Despite a cavalier attitude, these adolescents and teenagers are at greater risk of pregnancy, STD's and emotional problems. 

But all this legacy chatter digresses from the critical issue:  Bill Clinton committed perjury to cover-up what he knew to be bad behaviour and potentially illegal behaviour.  He subverted the judicial process and cheapened the stature of the Presidency.  I agree he has paid a heavy penalty for his actions.  Whether further punishment was warranted is now moot.

Lastly, you may have pleasantly surprised a few NB's with one of your statements... if they didn't fully read and understand the context of your words (Shades Of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter!):

"... Clinton should not have merely been impeached, but afterwards shot at sundown and buried in an unmarked grave."

You have proven your point that context matters, my friend. 

RRAM Tough!