19
   

The Circus in Chicago

 
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 10:01 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
It's really scary the way Leftists justify Democrats committing felonies.

I asked you to provide actual evidence to support your allegation and you have not done so.

The only one being unethical here is you, oralloy. Making claims that aren't true and then repeating them ad nauseam.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 10:01 am
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
Those aren't Democrats the GOP is getting. Those are the guys crawling out of their survivalist bunkers and forest hide-outs to vote for Trump in the primaries.

Mr. Trump is going to convince the Reagan Democrats to join the Republican Party permanently.

Once a sizable chunk of the Democratic base becomes part of the Republican base, the Democrats will be in for a series of electoral defeats.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 10:09 am
@oralloy,
You're an idiot.
parados
 
  4  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 10:13 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
The Republicans very much pointed out outright lies, both in the civil trial and in front of the grand jury. And I've done so before as well.


No, you have done no such thing. Saying you did doesn't make it true. The fact of the matter is there was never any specific statement shown to be false or unambiguous. Certainly, Clinton played word games but that doesn't make it perjury.

Witness tampering? Care to provide an example that would hold up in court? Clinton was circumspect in his conversations. One can draw the conclusion you did but there is plenty of room for doubt when it comes to making it a felony. There is no way one could get a conviction in a court room based on the flimsy evidence presented there.

Concealing evidence? What subpoenaed evidence was concealed? It isn't illegal to conceal evidence of an affair. It isn't illegal until something specifically asked for by the court is hidden.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 10:18 am
@parados,
"Beyond a reasonable doubt" comes to mind.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 10:37 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
I asked you to provide actual evidence to support your allegation and you have not done so.

Patience. If you want your message answered before his, you should post your message before he posts his. I usually try to answer messages in order. Rarely I jump ahead, but I usually regret it almost immediately because it quickly becomes impossible to keep track of which messages I've yet to answer.


From some posts that I made to you almost exactly 10 years ago, I note the following lies that Clinton committed under oath:

In the sexual harassment lawsuit, he said that he had not had sex with Lewinsky.

In the grand jury investigation, he said that he had not fondled Lewinsky's breasts.

Also, Clinton lied when he said that he and Lewinsky were never alone. My old post did not indicate whether this lie took place in the civil trial or grand jury investigation.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 10:49 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
You're an idiot.

Name-calling won't conceal the Democrats' complete lack of ethics.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 10:50 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
No, you have done no such thing.

Yes I did. Coincidentally it was almost exactly 10 years ago.


parados wrote:
Saying you did doesn't make it true.

That's the cool thing about facts. They are true on their own merit. There is no need to "make" them true.


parados wrote:
Witness tampering? Care to provide an example that would hold up in court?

His coaching of Betty Currie to guide her on how she should testify.


parados wrote:
Concealing evidence? What subpoenaed evidence was concealed?

The gifts that he had given to Lewinsky, which he then sent Betty Currie to remove from Lewinsky's possession.
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 10:57 am
@cicerone imposter,
I blame the Michigan water.
Blickers
 
  3  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 12:40 pm
@izzythepush,
And all this time Bill Clinton's approval ratings were over 60% because nobody is shocked when powerful men have mistresses.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 12:57 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
And all this time Bill Clinton's approval ratings were over 60% because nobody is shocked when powerful men have mistresses.

The really yucky thing about Democrats is, a Democratic president could murder a dozen people to cover up an affair, and the only thing that Democrats would ever say about it is "covering up an affair is no big deal".

Republicans have ethics.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 12:58 pm
@Blickers,
If they're screwing their mistresses they're not screwing the country.
Blickers
 
  2  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 01:07 pm
@oralloy,
Quote oralloy:
Quote:
The really yucky thing about Democrats is, a Democratic president could murder a dozen people to cover up an affair, and the only thing that Democrats would ever say about it is "covering up an affair is no big deal".

Republicans have ethics.

As a matter of fact, it is the Republicans who specialize in baseless accusations of murder, starting with the supposedly 20+ "murders" Bill Clinton had committed on the way up, and of course the Vince Foster "scandal". There were accusations thrown around about Foster and Hillary having an affair before the Republicans concentrated on calling Hillary a lesbian full time.

And then you wonder why nobody pays attention when Republicans foam at the mouth and accuse the Clintons.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 01:14 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
As a matter of fact, it is the Republicans who specialize in baseless accusations of murder, starting with the supposedly 20+ "murders" Bill Clinton had committed on the way up, and of course the Vince Foster "scandal". There were accusations thrown around about Foster and Hillary having an affair before the Republicans concentrated on calling Hillary a lesbian full time.

There is nothing baseless about all the accusations of perjury (both in civil court and before a grand jury), witness tampering, and obstruction of justice that were levied at Bill Clinton.


Blickers wrote:
And then you wonder why nobody pays attention when Republicans foam at the mouth and accuse the Clintons.

No. I am fully aware that the reason is because Democrats are completely lacking in ethics. They actually like it when other Democrats commit felonies in the White House.
Blickers
 
  2  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 01:19 pm
@oralloy,
Quote oralloy:
Quote:
There is nothing baseless about all the accusations of perjury (both in civil court and before a grand jury), witness tampering, and obstruction of justice that were levied at Bill Clinton.

There is everything baseless about the barrage of accusations about the pile of dead bodies Bill Clinton supposedly arranged for on his way up, the accusations of Hillary having Vince Foster killed, the accusations of Hillary having an affair with Vince Foster before the ethics-less conservative haters decided to shift gears and refer to Hillary as a lesbian full time.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 01:20 pm
@oralloy,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  4  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 01:20 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
The gifts that he had given to Lewinsky, which he then sent Betty Currie to remove from Lewinsky's possession.

You really should read the evidence.
1. Lewinsky testified that Clinton never specifically told her to hide gifts.
2. Currie testified that Clinton never told her to get gifts from Lewinsky.
3. Clinton testified he never told Currie to get gifts from Lewinsky.

Based on the evidence in the Starr report there is nothing there other than speculation by Lewinsky that she knew what Clinton meant even though he never said anything specific about it.


Quote:

His coaching of Betty Currie to guide her on how she should testify.

Once again, you need to read the testimony. Currie stated she felt he was asking to see how she would react not that he was coaching her. The prosecutor's feelings about statements don't create a felony. Not only that, Currie was not on any witness list at the time of Clinton's statements to her. This is complete nonsense to claim it is a felony.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 01:39 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
You really should read the evidence.

The last time I was interested in doing so was our conversation 10 years ago. I've since lost interest in researching the topic.


parados wrote:
1. Lewinsky testified that Clinton never specifically told her to hide gifts.
2. Currie testified that Clinton never told her to get gifts from Lewinsky.
3. Clinton testified he never told Currie to get gifts from Lewinsky.

Based on the evidence in the Starr report there is nothing there other than speculation by Lewinsky that she knew what Clinton meant even though he never said anything specific about it.

According to one of my posts to you 10 years ago:
Lewinsky said that Currie called and said "I understand you have something to give me." Or, "The President said you have something to give me" -- [Something] [a]long those lines.


parados wrote:
Once again, you need to read the testimony. Currie stated she felt he was asking to see how she would react not that he was coaching her. The prosecutor's feelings about statements don't create a felony. Not only that, Currie was not on any witness list at the time of Clinton's statements to her. This is complete nonsense to claim it is a felony.

Again according to one of my posts to you 10 years ago:
Bill Clinton asked Betty Currie to confirm a series of untrue statements, in a way that could only imply that he wanted her to use the untrue version of events in her testimony.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 01:40 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
There is everything baseless about the barrage of accusations about the pile of dead bodies Bill Clinton supposedly arranged for on his way up, the accusations of Hillary having Vince Foster killed, the accusations of Hillary having an affair with Vince Foster before the ethics-less conservative haters decided to shift gears and refer to Hillary as a lesbian full time.

So what? That doesn't make the Democrats any less sleazy for openly supporting the commission of felonies inside the White House.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 01:52 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:

According to one of my posts to you 10 years ago:
Lewinsky said that Currie called and said "I understand you have something to give me." Or, "The President said you have something to give me" -- [Something] [a]long those lines.

So Lewinsky said, but Currie and Clinton testified to something else. If we assume the first, there is nothing in there to claim Clinton told her anything. If we believe Currie then Lewinsky called Currie. Lots of room for doubt there since there is no evidence to support Lewinsky's unclear memory.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/05/2020 at 12:18:41