Silvio and Bill 
One of the clichés of the left in these days slaughtering is the comparison between the case of Monica Lewinsky and Ruby's Heartbreaker. According to Berlusconi, the left should be left as Bill Clinton risked impeachment for extra-marital affair with a fat intern (Note that the same left in defending Clinton era. Ezio Mauro Vero?). Beyond the fact that several statesmen in recent years have been involved scandals of the gentle sex-Jacques Chirac, François Mitterrand (also had a daughter "secret"), John Kennedy, etc.. etc. and none of them has ever resigned to these things, we try to explain well why the Lewinsky case and that Ruby and above are not comparable to say why he risked putting Clinton in a state of accusation. So that the private life of Bill Clinton was known to be very volatile for some time before the deal Lewinsky. Even during the presidential campaign of 1992 in fact, came out of a relationship between the then governor of Arkansas and one that Jennifer Flowers. In short, the habits of Clinton were already well known to American audiences when it burst the "Sexgate. The reason why Clinton risked his removal, however, was not a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky but it was the false testimony given under oath. Clinton, heard as a witness under oath, said he did not know Ms. Lewinsky. But then it turned out that we know that Clinton knew her, and to prove that the improper relationship between the two was the celebrated "stained dress". The reason I risked putting Clinton in a state indictment, however, tend to repeat and emphasize, were not his relationship with Lewinsky but false testimony under oath. Clarified that Dr. Berlusconi would do well to give a serious cleanup, and adjusted its security services that make water from all sides.
One of the clichés of the left in these days slaughtering is the comparison between the case of Monica Lewinsky and Ruby's Heartbreaker. According to Berlusconi, the left should be left as Bill Clinton risked impeachment for extra-marital affair with a fat intern (Note that the same left in defending Clinton era. Ezio Mauro Vero?). Beyond the fact that several statesmen in recent years have been involved scandals of the gentle sex-Jacques Chirac, François Mitterrand (also had a daughter "secret"), John Kennedy, etc.. etc. and none of them has ever resigned to these things, we try to explain well why the Lewinsky case and that Ruby and above are not comparable to say why he risked putting Clinton in a state of accusation. So that the private life of Bill Clinton was known to be very volatile for some time before the deal Lewinsky. Even during the presidential campaign of 1992 in fact, came out of a relationship between the then governor of Arkansas and one that Jennifer Flowers. In short, the habits of Clinton were already well known to American audiences when it burst the "Sexgate. The reason why Clinton risked his removal, however, was not a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky but it was the false testimony given under oath. Clinton, heard as a witness under oath, said he did not know Ms. Lewinsky. But then it turned out that we know that Clinton knew her, and to prove that the improper relationship between the two was the celebrated "stained dress". The reason I risked putting Clinton in a state indictment, however, tend to repeat and emphasize, were not his relationship with Lewinsky but false testimony under oath. Clarified that Dr. Berlusconi would do well to give a serious cleanup, and adjusted its security services that make water from all sides. 
0 comments:
Post a Comment