The Clinton Rape Allegations

Joe knows the high threshhold of a prosecutor proving perjury. Misleading statements are not always purjury.

0 Replies

Joe

Snap out of it LW:

I did not have sexual relations with that woman. I blew a load on her dress, but I did not have sexual relations with her. Laughing

However inconsequential this lie may be, it is a lie nonetheless and one he later apologized for. Where is there room for doubt?

0 Replies

Even if swolf's alleged source came from The Toronto Sun, an actual paper, I would still question its credibility.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

However inconsequential this lie may be, it is a lie nonetheless and one he later apologized for. Where is there room for doubt?

At around the point where you want to transform the lie into perjury.

0 Replies

Correct, Joe.

0 Replies

Um, anybody want to explain how lying to a grand jury is not perjury then?

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
However inconsequential this lie may be, it is a lie nonetheless and one he later apologized for. Where is there room for doubt?

At around the point where you want to transform the lie into perjury.

Perjury: the voluntary violation of an oath or vow either by swearing to what is untrue or by omission to do what has been promised under oath : false swearing.

What extra step does a deliberate lie have to take to become perjury, when you've already sworn to tell the truth?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Um, anybody want to explain how lying to a grand jury is not perjury then?

as soon as you tell us how saying we have to go to war because of non existant Weapons of Mass Destruciton can morph into liberating and establishing democracy with such fluid ease....

0 Replies

Result: Clinton was never convicted of purjury. He is a learned attorney, teaching law at once point in his career. Whether one likes it or not, he worded his testimony to leave a purjury case very unlikely. That is the consensus of the majority of lawyers.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

What extra step does a deliberate lie have to take to become perjury, when you've already sworn to tell the truth?

It must be a material false statement of fact.

"Materiality is an essential element of the federal offense of perjury. Its inclusion in the offense indicates that perjury is something more than merely a crime against the administration of justice at the most abstract level. Only those lies that in some way threaten the rights of others constitute perjury."

Your homework, O'BILL: read this article (.pdf file) and then you'll know almost as much as I do about perjury and Clinton's deposition testimony.

0 Replies

I don't think anybody can honestly read through the comments from the senators, both Republican and Democrat, and draw any conclusion other than they all believed he was guilty. And there is very little partisanship shown there--they are all speaking on the merits of the case. They can justify their vote by pointing out their opinion that the prosecution failed to make a convincing enough case for conviction and probably many are sincere about that. But I think every last one of them believed he was guilty. Not one said he was innocent.

I think a less popular president might not have fared so well in the vote.

0 Replies

a Martian wrote:

blahblahSlickblahblahdemmunistblahblah the republican house leadership made all the republicans read through the rape materials. A number of them walked out of the reading room visibly shaken.

That's because their brains were on the verge of exploding.

Just reading the Clenis mythology is enough to destroy The Right.

http://www.badplanet.com/bpimages/ta188.jpg

0 Replies

First PDiddie was addicted to Crystal.

Now it is Mars, it seems.

0 Replies

Perhaps the Senate should reopen the issue and the Clinton haters can hope for a better outcome this time. Since Bill is already out of office, they can punish Hillary by throwing her out.

I mean, really, give it up. Or don't, if you continue to derive pleasure from it. When I think of how, though, within weeks of the decision to give Bush the presidency, you guys were screaming at the Dems for crying foul about the process...

0 Replies

They only praise the American process if it goes in their favor. Otherwise, it's a sham.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

swolf wrote:
It definitely did exist at the time.

Nope.

I've had somebody from Toronto tell me it's the "Toronto Sun". Sorry for the confusion.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I think the more accurate take on it is that the Senate did not find the level of the crime sufficient to warrant removal from office.

I can't quite buy that. What appeared obviously to have happened at the time, to me at any rate, was that Trent Lott and the other republicans running the senate simply refused to hand the presidency over to Algor in a lame duck session. Had Lott wanted to, and assuming he had some way of getting rid of Algor like the dems got rid of Spiro Agnew in 74, he could have done what I'd have done, i.e. inform the stinking dems they had 48 hours to pack Slick's sorry butt off to St. E's where he belongs, or there were going to be impeachment hearings on prime time and at least one of Kathlene Willey's little kids was going to appear as a witness, i.e.

"Why did Mister Slick have to kill Fluffy to try to scare my mommy?"

The system is basically broken as we speak. Granted it should not be easy to remove a president, but it should not be impossible either and, presidently, it is impossible. If we couldn't get rid of Slick, we could not get rid of Mussolini or Hitler either.

What I would recommend is a constitutional ammendment stating that if a president is removed via impeachment, then his veep goes out the door with him, and the presidency is handed over to the oldest US senator of the president's party, on condition that he not run again.

The law should not favor or reward people for their own evil deeds.

0 Replies

PDiddie wrote:

a Martian wrote:
blahblahSlickblahblahdemmunistblahblah the republican house leadership made all the republicans read through the rape materials. A number of them walked out of the reading room visibly shaken.

That's because their brains were on the verge of exploding.

Just reading the Clenis mythology is enough to destroy The Right.

Did you mean to write "crenis", as in "crooked penis"

http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1998/oct/10-27-98/news/news6.html

Quote:

The 725 pages of Jones case documents, released for the first time, also show that attorneys for Clinton and Jones fought ferociously over whether the president's medical records should be turned over. Jones' lawyers were seeking verification of her recollection that the president had a "crooked" penis.

More to the point, are you claiming that's something the rest of us should envy??

0 Replies

PDiddie wrote:

Just reading the Clenis mythology is enough to destroy The Right.

You might get a kick out of this one as well:

http://slate.msn.com/id/1000214/

Quote:

Q: Did she say anything about its size?

A: No. It was hard and crooked and gross. You know. That was the word she used.

Q: Did she say it was gross?

A: Awful.

Q: Is that what she said?

A: Yeah, Just it was awful. Gross. I mean, just--you know.

Q: Well, now let's go back. Because Ms. [Clinton attorney Kathlyn] Graves--

A: Because of what I said earlier.

Q: Ms. Graves asked you at length what your sister told you about the president's penis. And I don't remember your saying that your sister told you that it was awful and gross. Are those your sister's words?

A: Yeah. It was awful. Yeah.

Q: She said it was awful-looking?

A: Yeah.

Q: And gross-looking?

A: It was awful. It was just awful.

Q: Did she use the word "gross"?

A: Yeah. Just gross. Awful-looking....

0 Replies

swolf wrote:

The system is basically broken as we speak. Granted it should not be easy to remove a president...

That should have read, "...presently it's impossible". Sorry.

0 Replies

The Clinton Rape Allegations

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know