There's a HUGE difference between adultry and Terrorism.

but just as ridiculous to apply the guilty by association theory to either

find where someone was ALSO engaged in terrorism or associated with someone in a TERRORISTIC event or plan,,,and I may label them a terrorist supporter

just telling me they worked with someone who was previously or afterwards found by some other source to be a 'terrorist' is a ridiculousy vague criteria for me to condemn that person for any reason

last time i checked, adultery wasn't against the law

and last I checked the justice system has the offender 'pay for their crimes',

not their associates

i think your wrong there...depends on what they can prove, and who broke what law... if you know someone is going to kill someone, and didn't do anything to stop it, as long as they can prove it, your guilty to. the only thing that matters is what they can prove in a court.

IF it can be PROVEN(being the significant criteria) that you
A. knew what they were going to do

or

B. took part in what they did


neither of which usually applies in the guilty by association charges most like to level in the political game

Only in the UCMJ.

That was before terrorism.

BUT perjury is and that's what got Clinton and why he can't practice law anymore.

i didn't think he was convicted on anything... has any president had a job after being president?

He was for Perjury, he pled I believe. I know he can't practice law anymore since that is a big no no for a lawyer.

i found this, kinda long, but it explains all that... from wiki

After the Starr report was submitted to the House providing 'substantial and credible information that President Clinton Committed Acts that May Constitute Grounds for an Impeachment',[71] the House began impeachment hearings before the mid-term elections. Although the mid-term elections held in November 1998 were at the 6-year point in an 8-year presidency (a time in the electoral cycle where the party holding the White House usually loses Congressional seats), the Democratic Party gained several seats.[34] To hold impeachment proceedings, the Republican leadership called a lame duck session in December 1998.
The impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton in 1999, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist presiding.

While the House Judiciary Committee hearings ended in a straight-party-line vote, there was lively debate on the House floor. The two charges passed in the House (largely on the basis of Republican support, but with a handful of Democratic votes as well) were for perjury and obstruction of justice. The perjury charge arose from Clinton's testimony about his relationship to Monica Lewinsky during a sexual harassment lawsuit (later dismissed, appealed and settled for $850,000)[72] brought by former Arkansas state employee Paula Jones. The obstruction charge was based on his actions during the subsequent investigation of that testimony. The Senate later voted to acquit Clinton on both charges.[73] The Senate refused to convene to hold an impeachment trial before the end of the old term, so the trial was held over until the next Congress. Clinton was represented by Washington law firm Williams & Connolly.

The Senate concluded a twenty-one day trial on February 12, 1999, with the vote on both counts falling short of the Constitutional two-thirds majority requirement to convict and remove an office holder. The final vote was generally along party lines, with no Democrats voting guilty. Some Republicans voted not guilty for both charges. On the perjury charge, fifty-five senators voted to acquit, including ten Republicans, and forty-five voted to convict; on the obstruction charge the Senate voted 50-50.[74]
Law license suspension

In 2000 the Arkansas Supreme Court's Committee on Professional Conduct called for Clinton's disbarment, saying he lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

In January 2001 Clinton reached an agreement under which he was ordered to pay $25,000 in fines to Arkansas state's bar officials and his Arkansas law license was suspended for five years.[75] The agreement came on the condition that Whitewater prosecutors would not pursue federal perjury charges against him.[76] Clinton was suspended by the Supreme Court in October 2001, and, facing disbarment from that court, Clinton resigned from the Supreme Court bar in November.[77]

Perjury and Obstruction of Justice.

technically he was only barred from US supreme court, his arkansas disbarment was for only Five years,,,after which he had the option to recover his credentials


lol, someone posted details while I was typing this,,,.lol

Still, that's pretty bad. He should have just manned up.

he shoulda just kept it in pants...

Just so you know, your comment about "lain exclusively at the feet of Obama" when the billboard neither says nor implies any such thing, would be a textbook case of intellectual dishonesty. Merely implying that a connection exists, as in the cartoon, is accurate.

Definition: intellectual dishonesty

* the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false or misleading
* the advocacy of a position which the advocate does not know to be true, and has not performed rigorous due diligence to ensure the truthfulness of the position
* the conscious omission of aspects of the truth known or believed to be relevant in the particular context.

If you were married to Hillary would you have been able to?

i try to keep my word, so i woulda tried...daddy bush didn't seem to have a problem with it, and look at Barbra...just sayin, ya know...