Since you changed your post, let me respond. I understand that Ms. Brodderick opposes both Clintons. I understand that she is making this claim that she was raped. That doesn't alter the fact that she swore nothing happened.

There was a standing offer by Richard Mellon Scaife as part of his Arkansas Project to pay women money for claiming to have had a relationship with Clinton. Needless to say, many did.

It was an analogy, not a jump from topic-to-topic. Here are examples of coercion through use of the IRS:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_30_18/ai_90753041

AND
http://www.etherzone.com/2001/dowb050301.shtml

(scroll down to the section titled "Rossotti’s IRS Shakedowns: Political Enemies Audited"


AND:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/22/200136.shtml

Point blank...if Libby's innocent...an appeals court will overturn the conviction...

If not...justice was served...

PS: NewsMax and Judicial Watch aren't exactly sources who have an unbiased opinion of the Clintons...

Uh, not quite. If you recall, the Jones case was thrown out before Clinton's lie under oath in regards to the Lewinsky matter was made public. The Clinton team knew they were going to lose the appeal based on that. Also, if you recall, Mr. Clinton signed the legislation that made this type of behavior discoverable in these types of lawsuits. So, cry about how it was immaterial all you like. It was a pattern of behavior on his part, he didn't want to admit to it, and so he lied about it. Under oath.

I mean exactly what I said: The leak was not a crime, and it was entirely justifiable, given the lying op-ed that the administration was attempting to provide the context for.

Uh, you have no idea what you are talking about. Below is a timeline of the events in the case. Ken Starr was already conducting his witchhunt by January, 1998 and the case wasn't dismissed until April of that year.

Jones case timeline

I think you misunderstand. I'm not saying he didn't publicly lie before April, 1998. I'm saying the fact that he lied was not made public until after that. Mr. Clinton, his hand forced by the infamous blue dress, admitted his lie in August, 1998. In October, 1998, the appeals court heard Ms. Jones' argument, and it was reported that at least two of the judges were sympathetic to her argument. Mr. Clinton settled before its decision was announced.

You had said:

"the Jones case was thrown out before Clinton's lie under oath in regards to the Lewinsky matter was made public. The Clinton team knew they were going to lose the appeal based on that."

The allegations were public in January, and were certainly known to the judge who dismissed the case in April. The appeal had NOTHING to do with Lewinsky, the case was dismissed because Jones couldn't prove an element of her case, that she had any damages. If you want to believe that she would have won on appeal, that's something that no one can prove or disprove, but it certainly had nothing to do with the public disclosure as you said it did. That wasn't even an issue.

The allegations were known, the fact of the lie was not. The judge saw fit to find him in contempt after the fact of the lie was known, not when the allegations became public.

I just don't think Ted gets it.