When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

@giujohn,

Ten republicans voted against the conviction of President Bill Clinton and no democrats voted for conviction. The entire proceeding was partisan and giant waste of tax payer money just investigate the sex life of a president. Moreover, technically, he did not commit perjury under oath. In the civil case with Paula Jones there was a definition of what constitutes intimate relations and the act Monica Lewinsky performed on Clinton did not fall under the definition. It was because of that definition Bill Clinton was not charged with perjury in the Paula Jones case but rather contempt of court.

Quote:

The next morning, Saturday, January 17, President Clinton, in compliance with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, arrived at his lawyer's office two blocks from the White House to give a pretrial deposition in the Jones case, with the procedure also videotaped. Sitting across the table from Paula Jones, the President was questioned for six hours by her lawyers and was quite surprised when they asked whether he ever had "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky along with other detailed questions. Clinton, somber and hesitant, denied under oath having sexual relations with Lewinsky, according to the definition provided by Jones's lawyers. Clinton also said he could not recall ever being alone with her in the White House. The President's denials would later be used as the basis of an article of impeachment. (Deposition Excerpts)

source

Quote:

The lawyers for Paula Jones badly bungled their definition of sexual relations, coming up with one that did not include oral sex performed on Clinton. (More on this below.) Clinton answered absolutely truthfully; according to that legal definition of "sexual relations," he did not have sex with Ms. Lewinsky.

source

1 Reply

Is anyone else following what Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Kaine are doing on the campaign trail?

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

I do if it pops up on my news, but otherwise, not really.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Once again for the cognitively impaired... I could give a rat's ass about Oval Office blow jobs... The issue is a sitting US president lying under oath in a US court preceding... Correct me if I'm wrong wasn't Bill disbarred?

0 Replies

@revelette2,

He was a sitting US president who lied under oath in a US court proceeding... Was impeached and disbarred as a lawyer. Those are the facts and they're indisputable. Done and done.

1 Reply

@giujohn,

Be factually incorrect under oath is not the same thing as a crime. Just as having a gun is not the same thing as committing murder.

1 Reply

@parados,

No it's not, but that isn't what happened.

1 Reply

@giujohn,

Your facts often seem to be at odds with reality.

Clinton was not disbarred from practicing law. His law license was suspended in AR for 5 years.

He surrendered his license to practice law in front of the Supreme Court but that does not disbar him from being a lawyer. There are probably a million lawyers in the US that have never practiced law in front of the Supreme Court but they are still lawyers.

Quote:

The Arkansas Supreme Court suspended Clinton’s Arkansas law license in April 2000. On January 19, 2001, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension and a $25,000 fine in order to avoid disbarment and to end the investigation of Independent Counsel Robert Ray (Starr’s successor). On October 1, 2001, Clinton’s U.S. Supreme Court law license was suspended, with 40 days to contest his disbarment. On November 9, 2001, the last day for Clinton to contest the disbarment, he opted to resign from the Supreme Court Bar, surrendering his license, rather than facing penalties related to disbarment.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/09/gary-north/lost-law-licenses-presidents-obama-clinton-and-nixon/

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

No it's not, but that isn't what happened.

In Clinton's case it wasn't even about being factually incorrect. Much of it was about the questions being vague and answers being technically truthful but misleading. Perjury requires 3 things: the question must be specific, the answer has to be clearly and specifically untrue and there must be proof that the person giving the factually untrue statement has to know it is a lie when telling it.

2 Replies

@parados,

In April 2001, Clinton's Arkansas law licence was suspended for five years and he was given a $25,000 fine. He had agreed to that disbarment as a form of plea bargain in January, on the day before he left office, after reaching a deal to bring an end to the Lewinsky investigation, in which he could have faced charges for contempt.

He was officially disbarred without comment from practicing before the US Supreme Court in October 2001

The US supreme court issued an order disbarring Clinton from practising law before the court...a decision that usually follows disbarment in a lower court.

These are the facts they are not disputed... Done and done.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

No it's not, but that isn't what happened.

In Clinton's case it wasn't even about being factually incorrect. Much of it was about the questions being vague and answers being technically truthful but misleading. Perjury requires 3 things: the question must be specific, the answer has to be clearly and specifically untrue and there must be proof that the person giving the factually untrue statement has to know it is a lie when telling it.

Which is what happened.

2 Replies

@giujohn,

It seems you don't seem to even know what your original statement was and you haven't bothered to check the actual facts. A suspension is NOT a disbarment since it doesn't remove their license.

Clinton withdrew from the bar for the USSC on Nov 9th of 2001 the last day he had to dispute the disbarment proceedings. By withdrawing the disbarment did not happen as it was moot. He was not disbarred.

You left out many facts. It's a good thing you aren't under oath or you would be committing the same kind of perjury you claim Clinton committed.

0 Replies

@parados,

This is what happened. She was not disbarred. Her license just lapsed.
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-disbarred/

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

Quote:

Where did you git this? It looks like someone has photoshoped this. Way too much movement and strange blips as it plays.

The person who tried to fix the very poor quality video created his video from this Facebook page.

www.facebook.com/newshour/videos/10154494946938675

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Really, who the **** cares about a 20-year-old non-scandal involving someone who's not running for office?

Go outside and live a little.

1 Reply

This is a great example of the base, bare knuckle nature of power politics.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/08/26/flashback-friday-trump-raises-ante-hillary-attacks-racism-2008-campaign-reminders/?utm_source=hadaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Ironically, many of the so-called journalists who were outraged by the comments the Clintons made during the primary contest with Obama, are now fully in her corner and have forgotten what they were outraged about.

What they were outraged about was a lot of nonsense, but evidence that the Left will pull out the racist card every single time...even if it's to be used against one of their own.

The attacks against the Clintons were completely unfair. Hillary's comment about LBJ was not racist. Was she supposed to wait until there was a black president before claiming that a Democrat president (albeit a white one) arguably did more for black Americans than any president since Lincoln? Obama hardly has the same record as LBJ.

And the cup of coffee comment? Give me a break. It was just another example of the Left claiming racism over any and all criticisms of Obama.

Don't get me wrong, it didn't outrage me, because is was great fun to see the Left eat their own and with the same fangs they use on conservatives, but it was groundless and unfair.

Bill and Hillary may be cynically indifferent racists in the sense that they believe blacks are incapable of succeeding in America without government handouts and they surely are very happy with the reliability of black vote for Democrats, and therefore will do whatever they think is necessary to keep the bloc intact, but the sort of charges being made against them back then were pretty ridiculous.

If the Clinton campaign is going to charge Trump with racism, it should expect a return volley and using Democratic charges that she and Bill were guilty of racist tactics against Obama, is pretty clever. Live by the sword; die by the sword.

The president of the United States is the most powerful position in the world (barring the existence of some Grand Poobah of a string-pulling Illuminati) and people will do anything to get a hold of it...anything.

When we all realize this and stop falling for crap about how any candidate is a noble crusader for the people and the American Way, we will all be better off.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Which is what happened.

Nope, it didn't, if it did, he would have been charged with perjury in the Paula Jones case. He was not. He got cited for contempt. A slap on the wrist. He got impeached by a bunch partisan angry men over a sex act performed on him and being delusory about it.

Every time I think about it, which is only when I am on message boards, mainly this one, it was the height of stupidity for Bill Clinton to engage with Monica Lewinsky in the midst of a civil suit of sexual harassment when Kenneth Starr had been foaming at the mouth to get at him with something--anything. It is like he gave them a gift and said, "Here, see if you can get me on this."

Kind of like his recent foray the during all the FBI email stuff. It is like he gets a kick out of all this.

2 Replies

@revelette2,

Do you ever stop and see the big picture on anything? I am sure that if this were about Bush and WMD in Iraq you'd be screaming about "Bush lied and people died!!!" but you can't see that Bill did a single thing wrong and it was just all partisan nonsense...

You are the poster child of what's wrong in American politics.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

When we all realize this and stop falling for crap about how any candidate is a noble crusader for the people and the American Way, we will all be better off.

It's for the voter to decide which candidate they will vote for. All candidates makes promises that they don't keep. That's a fact of life about politics and politicians. After realizing this, we still end up voting for the 'best' candidate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_promise

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Really, who the **** cares about a 20-year-old non-scandal involving someone who's not running for office?

Go outside and live a little.

So if I dispute false claims that Bill Clinton was guilty of nothing more than being mistaken or confused, I'm an obsessive hermit who needs to go outside?

Obviously a lot of people still care about it, and since it goes to the subject of the legitimacy of the Clinton Foundation and the nature of the Clinton Playbook, it matters.

Parados obviously cares about it or he wouldn't keep trotting out defenses. If it didn't matter, you wouldn't be getting all riled up about it.

2 Replies

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know