1
   

Clinton Impeached Over Sex Lie, Liar Condie Gets Promoted

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
dare2think
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 01:37 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Harper wrote:
Ha ha ha, when Clinton lies nobody died and Clinton was exonerated BTW. Rice lied about the Aug 6 PDB saying it was a historical document. Remember when Rice testified the contents of the PDB had not been released.]


Why Harper I'm shocked...according to the republicans AND the Christian right, billions and billions of human lives were murdered when Clinton released his sperm into the jew whores throat.........get right with God soon, will ya?

hahahahahahahaha, You got me rolling on this one, Bi-Polar hehehehehehe
0 Replies
 
dare2think
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 01:41 pm
a little presidential sperm, hail to the chief..hahahahahaha
0 Replies
 
Harper
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 01:41 pm
dare2think wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Harper wrote:
Ha ha ha, when Clinton lies nobody died and Clinton was exonerated BTW. Rice lied about the Aug 6 PDB saying it was a historical document. Remember when Rice testified the contents of the PDB had not been released.]


Why Harper I'm shocked...according to the republicans AND the Christian right, billions and billions of human lives were murdered when Clinton released his sperm into the jew whores throat.........get right with God soon, will ya?

hahahahahahahaha, You got me rolling on this one, Bi-Polar hehehehehehe


And remember further that Bush said he would not allow Rice to testify then he flip-flopped!
0 Replies
 
Harper
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 01:42 pm
Harper wrote:
So now you are saying that she lied to the 911 comission but she wasn't sworn in?


Well?


BTW I mistakenly said she lied to Congress, Harper regrets the error?
0 Replies
 
Harper
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 01:52 pm
Harper wrote:
BTW Lash, please explain how Rice's lies to Congress could possibly be construed as Obstruction of Justice?


Two posters chime in claming incorrectly that I didn't answer a question. Looks like old projection rears it's head yet again.
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 02:20 pm
Harper wrote:
So now you are saying that she lied to the 911 comission but she wasn't sworn in?


Nope. I am not saying she lied, you are.

And nope. She did not give sworn testimony and thus could not have commtted perjury.

Clinton did and earned himself perjury and obstruction of justice charges.
0 Replies
 
Harper
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 02:36 pm
Larry434 wrote:
Harper wrote:
So now you are saying that she lied to the 911 comission but she wasn't sworn in?


Nope. I am not saying she lied, you are.

And nope. She did not give sworn testimony and thus could not have commtted perjury.

Clinton did and earned himself perjury and obstruction of justice charges.


Sometimes, one is better advised to dodge the question especially when it is a trap. Larry, you are over-matched here.



Rice Testimony Gets it Done for Bush, Commission Expects Unanimous Report

[April 9, 2004 evote.com] It was a stretch to suggest the Bush presidency hung in the balance, though some pundits tried. Therefore, it would also be a stretch to suggest that Condoleezza Rice's testimony to the 9/11 Commission went a long way to reassuring four more years for George W. Bush. But, by most measures, it certainly didn't hurt.

When she raised her right hand to be sworn in Thursday morning,
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 02:59 pm
So what lie did she tell under oath before the commission, harper?

Certainly, you have the quote ready.
0 Replies
 
Harper
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 04:16 pm
I already answered that three times. Apparently you have a big problem assimilating facts.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 04:26 pm
Harper wrote:
Harper wrote:
BTW Lash, please explain how Rice's lies to Congress could possibly be construed as Obstruction of Justice?


As soon as you point out her lie...

Do you remember Clinton's? I'll remind you, if you have...
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 04:39 pm
Clinton was not charged or convicted with perjury in a court of law, only that silly impeachment thing that was a partisan witch hunt.

He was just charged with contempt of court after the impeachment thing, not the same as perjury.
0 Replies
 
Harper
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 05:07 pm
Lash wrote:
Harper wrote:
Harper wrote:
BTW Lash, please explain how Rice's lies to Congress could possibly be construed as Obstruction of Justice?


As soon as you point out her lie...

Do you remember Clinton's? I'll remind you, if you have...



Lash accusing me of dodging a question I have answered three times while he flatly refuses to answer mine. Amazing yet typical.
0 Replies
 
MaryM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 05:22 pm
It would be interesting to see how condi's confirmation would go if the senate were not Republican. There isn't any doubt in my mind that the administration did everything it could to beat the war drums, and skated close to the edge many times. However in the case of Harper's voluminous cut n' pastes, I don't see a smoking gun. I do smell gunpowder.

Clinton lost his license to practise law in Arkansas because he perjured himself. He didn't go to jail because lawyers always take care of their own.

Harper, you and I have the same haircut, although it has been 15 years since mine was all brunette!
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 05:57 pm
Harper wrote:
Lash wrote:
Harper wrote:
Harper wrote:
BTW Lash, please explain how Rice's lies to Congress could possibly be construed as Obstruction of Justice?


As soon as you point out her lie...

Do you remember Clinton's? I'll remind you, if you have...



Lash accusing me of dodging a question I have answered three times while he flatly refuses to answer mine. Amazing yet typical.


I have not seen an answer to the simple question, what did Condi say under oath that would be construed as perjury by any credible authority?
0 Replies
 
Harper
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 06:06 pm
MaryM wrote:
It would be interesting to see how condi's confirmation would go if the senate were not Republican. There isn't any doubt in my mind that the administration did everything it could to beat the war drums, and skated close to the edge many times. However in the case of Harper's voluminous cut n' pastes, I don't see a smoking gun. I do smell gunpowder.

Clinton lost his license to practise law in Arkansas because he perjured himself. He didn't go to jail because lawyers always take care of their own.

Harper, you and I have the same haircut, although it has been 15 years since mine was all brunette!



One complains that I didn't answer the question, another says I answered "too much."


Anyway, at least Mary has good taste in hairstyles. I kinda like my angry look! :wink: I will admit that perjury is hard to prove, let's at least agree that she was less than forthcoming. IMO, she is totally incompetent. In fact. so incompetent, maybe she just had al her facts wrong. She is an expert on the Soviet Union which, of course, no longer exists.
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 06:10 pm
"I will admit that perjury is hard to prove, let's at least agree that she was less than forthcoming..."

Finally!

And of course I agree that being "less than forthcoming" is difficult, if not immpossible, to stretch to a charge of perjury...but you did your best. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 06:13 pm
Lash wrote:
Lying under oath is very clearly an attempted obstruction of justice.

What statement of Rice's constitutes perjury?


Didn't sshe refuse to take an oath, or try to?

Or was that just Bush?
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 06:13 pm
You see Harper where the truth is concerned....people of Larry's ilk...the same people who dislike trial lawyers......are interested in what they can get away with without violating the letter of the law rather than how they can conduct themselves in the spirit of the law.....you could have saved time by changing Rice is a perjurer to Rice is a lying sack of ****....
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 06:21 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
You see Harper where the truth is concerned....people of Larry's ilk...the same people who dislike trial lawyers......are interested in what they can get away with without violating the letter of the law rather than how they can conduct themselves in the spirit of the law.....you could have saved time by changing Rice is a perjurer to Rice is a lying sack of ****....


That would at least been an honest opinion instead of falsely contending that lying, or as harper finally conceded "being less than forthcoming", is a felony. And, of course, the truth will set you free. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 06:37 pm
As a matter of interest, how is it viewed - ethically and legally - to be obstructive, or less than forthcoming - in such a hearing?

At a royal commission here it would be regarded very seriously indeed - from a public official, especially.
0 Replies
 
 

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
AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND - Discussion by Foxfyre
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night? - Question by maxdancona
What should be first on the agenda of the winner in November? - Discussion by Frank Apisa
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Clinton Impeached Over Sex Lie, Liar Condie Gets Promoted
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/20/2024 at 04:28:25
▲ ▼