2
   

Republicans don't think perjury is a big deal after all

 
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2005 05:55 am
Perjury and obstruction of justice are crimes defined in a court of law, not by separate individuals. If someone is found to be guilty in a court of law of those crimes (or others) then President Bush would have fire them if he wants to stand by his word.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2005 06:15 am
Absolutely, Revel & Cy. And in my opinion, any republican who says otherwise while still defending the Clinton impeachment is certainly being a bit hypocritical.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2005 06:23 am
Sturgis wrote:
revel wrote:
Bush said that he would get rid of anyone who has committed a crime, he didn't specify what kind of crime.

Quote:
"I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we know the facts. And if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration," Bush said.


source


Yes; however, all of this would depend on what President Bush defines as being a crime.


And I'm thinking that if "crimes" were commited, as opposed to a single "crime," that might be an out too.


(Note: I'm trying to apply the Clinton model of analysis here, so my position is constantly evolving.)
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2005 06:23 am
CoastalRat wrote:
Absolutely, Revel & Cy. And in my opinion, any republican who says otherwise while still defending the Clinton impeachment is certainly being a bit hypocritical.


I agree, CR.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2005 06:48 am
Considering that clinton was never charged with perjury or convicted of any crime in a court of law but only contempt of court, the two are not comparable.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2005 06:54 am
I don't think any Dems here, or on Abuzz, ever claimed that lying under oath was okay. It was the constant "gate" investigations (harrassment) that lead nowhere, were completely politically motivated, and that only concluded that he lied about a blow job that "we" objected to.

Making up evidence to go to war, outing a CIA agent, lying under oath about outing a CIA agent... Now THAT's serious stuff!
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2005 07:10 am
But it wasn't the blow job, squinney. It was the lie. The rest was Hillary's problem.

And yeah, this is the bigger problem. No argument.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2005 07:15 am
republicans as as many varied opinions as do the dems.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2005 07:58 am
The republicans seem to have a distorted sense of values. Perjury relative to sexual indiscretion's is a crime while perjury related to national security is not.
As to what Bush knew or did not know. I believe he was up to his armpits in the effort to discredit Wilson. It is his style.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2005 07:58 am
Me and Tico went round this Clinton lying under oath a million times. In the end, the only way he actually might have lied was saying that he didn't know if Monica was ever alone with him in the oval office, which he might not have known since someone could have been around somewhere and he might not have seen him/her, and then later he admitted that she did come alone once. The part about the denying sexual relations was not a lie since under the Paula Jones court definition; oral sex was not considered intimate relations. This is why he was never charged with perjury, because he never legally outright lied.

The whole thing was stupid from the get go and Clinton should have just been up front about it once he realized that he was caught red handed (or blue) with Monica Lewinsky. He later apologized for misleading the grand jury, the world and his wife about the whole thing.

Clinton never said that he would fire himself if it turns out that he was involved with Lewinsky. Bush did say that he would fire anyone who has committed a crime. Let's see if he keeps his word if anyone is actually indicted, tried, and found guilty of any crime in connection with the CIA leak issue.

Most people will see the difference between this case and the whole Clinton Monica mess and respond accordingly. Throughout the whole Clinton thing, his ratings remained high. Lying about sex is not on the same scale as trying to smear someone because they exposed the truth about the doubts of Iraq trying to obtain uranium in Niger in order to bolster support for an invasion of Iraq. I doubt people will support this lie like they did Clintons; hypercritical or not.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2005 08:15 am
CoastalRat wrote:

Never said he was indicted. Try reading a bit slower next time. I am agreeing with the premise that anyone committing perjury should be kicked out. I'm only giving the logical conclusion that any of our lawmakers can make from the Clinton fiasco, and that is that according to the democrats, perjury is not an impeachable offense, otherwise they would have voted to convict Clinton. I think it is an impeachable offense for anyone in the federal government, but it should apply for republicans and democrats alike.

Oh.. so you are saying that the mere allegation without any indictment is PROOF of perjury in the case of Clinton. So in other words if someone alleges that Bush robbed a bank it would make it a perfect defense for every bank robber.

The fact that the Senate didn't remove Clinton in no way translates to they didn't think perjury was not an impeachable defense. Rhenquist said it quite clearly, "Not Guilty."

There are major differences here that you are failing to address. An INDICTMENT is quite different from an allegation.
We can argue all day about whether Clinton actually committed perjury but it is nothing more than allegation with some facts that can mean lots of things. And it all comes down the the fact that there wasn't a provable case for perjury.

Removing someone from office because they are alleged to commit a crime is kind of silly. Removing them from a position in the administration if they are indicted is the perogative of the President. If he wants the political albatross of indicted people working for him then he should keep them on.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2005 08:16 am
revel wrote:
Me and Tico went round this Clinton lying under oath a million times. In the end, the only way he actually might have lied was saying that he didn't know if Monica was ever alone with him in the oval office, which he might not have known since someone could have been around somewhere and he might not have seen him/her, and then later he admitted that she did come alone once. The part about the denying sexual relations was not a lie since under the Paula Jones court definition; oral sex was not considered intimate relations. This is why he was never charged with perjury, because he never legally outright lied.


I know you're having difficulty remembering the details, revel, so allow me to refresh your memory about Clinton's lies. It's really no bother ....

When Clinton was asked, "At any time were you and Monica Lewinsky alone together in the Oval Office?", his response was, "I don't recall ..."

Clinton was careful not to make an outright denial, and instead he responded that he remembered one or two times when Lewinsky came to drop off some papers for him in the Oval Office. This was apparently true, because Monica did go to the Oval Office and brought some papers. But he failed to mention that she did more than just drop off some papers. Oh, and it develops that they were alone like 10 to 15 times.

Let's not forget this exchange during his deposition:

Quote:
Q. Certainly if it happened, nothing remarkable would have occurred?

A. No, nothing remarkable. I don't remember it.



In his January 17, 1998, sworn deposition in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit, Clinton swore under oath as follows:

Quote:
Q. At any time were you and Monica Lewinsky alone together in the Oval Office?

A. I don't recall (BS), but as I said, when she worked at the legislative affairs office, they always had somebody there on the weekends. I typically worked some on the weekends. Sometimes they'd bring me things on the weekends. She - it seems to me she brought things to me once or twice on the weekends. In that case, whatever time she would be in there, drop it off, exchange a few words and go, she was there. I don't have any specific recollections of what the issues were, what was going on, but when the Congress is there, we're working all the time, and typically I would do some work on one of the days of the weekends in the afternoon.

Q. So I understand, your testimony is that it was possible, then, that you were alone with her, but you have no specific recollection of that ever happening?

A. Yes, that's correct. (BS) It's possible that she, in, while she was working there, brought something to me and that at the time she brought it to me, she was the only person there. That's possible.

. . .

Q. Have you ever met with Monica Lewinsky in the White House between the hours of midnight and six a.m.?

A. I certainly don't think so.

Q. Have you ever met -

A. Now, let me just say, when she was working there, during, there may have been a time when we were all - we were up working late. There are lots of, on any given night, when the Congress is in session, there are always several people around until late in the night, but I don't have any memory of that. I just can't say that there could have been a time when that occurred, I just - but I don't remember it. (BS)

Q. Certainly if it happened, nothing remarkable would have occurred?

A. No, nothing remarkable. I don't remember it. (BS)

. . .

Q. Did you have an extramarital sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky?

A. No. (BS)

Q. If she told someone that she had a sexual affair with you beginning in November of 1995, would that be a lie?

A. It's certainly not the truth. It would not be the truth. (BS)

Q. I think I used the term "sexual affair." And so the record is completely clear, have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court.

. . .

A. I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've never had an affair with her.


(Note: "(BS)" stands for "intentionally misleading.")
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2005 08:18 am
Ticomaya wrote:
CoastalRat wrote:
Absolutely, Revel & Cy. And in my opinion, any republican who says otherwise while still defending the Clinton impeachment is certainly being a bit hypocritical.


I agree, CR.


tip o the hat to you both on this one.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2005 08:19 am
Tico,

Nice to see that you think "intentionally misleading" is an outright lie as required by perjury law.

Does that mean that Bush lied if he intentionally misled about the facts leading up to the war in Iraq?





Dance now Tico.. Dance..
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2005 08:20 am
parados wrote:
There are major differences here that you are failing to address. An INDICTMENT is quite different from an allegation.


Actually, an incictment is an allegation. A formal allegation to be sure, but merely an allegation nonetheless.

parados wrote:
We can argue all day about whether Clinton actually committed perjury but it is nothing more than allegation with some facts that can mean lots of things. And it all comes down the the fact that there wasn't a provable case for perjury.


In and of itself, lying is not a crime. To commit perjury, Clinton must have taken an oath to testify truthfully. So only his lies made under oath might qualify as purgery. The Supreme Court has set a relatively high standard for determining whether a statement is false for purposes of perjury law. Misleading testimony, coupled with an intent to mislead is not the legal standard in deciding whether someone made a false statement under federal perjury law. The issue is whether a witness may be convicted of perjury for an answer, under oath, that is literally true but not responsive to the question asked and misleading by negative implication. And nobody can be convicted of perjury based on only one other person's testimony.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2005 08:24 am
parados wrote:
Does that mean that Bush lied if he intentionally misled about the facts leading up to the war in Iraq?


Yes it does, as I have consistently stated.

parados wrote:
Dance now Tico.. Dance..

http://www.mainzelahr.de/smile/stoerte/hopps2.gif
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2005 08:32 am
Ticomaya wrote:
parados wrote:
Does that mean that Bush lied if he intentionally misled about the facts leading up to the war in Iraq?


Yes it does, as I have consistently stated.



Welcome to the "I believe Bush lied" club. :wink:

There isn't much doubt that the administration misled in its statements about Iraq leading up to the war.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2005 08:36 am
parados wrote:
There isn't much doubt that the administration misled in its statements about Iraq leading up to the war.


The missing word, "intentionally," in that last sentence of yours is noted.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2005 08:39 am
Tico
Tico, why do you continue to embarrass yourself by trying to divert attention away from the Bush administration via rehashing the Clinton case?

We are discussing the Bushies and their corruption, incompetence, and lies.

The Bush-Walker families are among the most corrupt families in America. They have a long documented history of their venalness through several generations.

The Cheney family seems to have behaved itself until Dick Cheney came along.

BBB
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2005 08:43 am
Re: Tico
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Tico, why do you continue to embarass yourself by trying to divert attention away from the Bush administration via rehashing the Clinton case?

We are discussing the Bushies and their corruption, incompetence, and lies.

BBB


Revel felt the need to defend Clinton, and misstate his lies, in her continuing quest to persuade that Clinton didn't lie. I felt the need to correct her.
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
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
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 06:09:21