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

blatham wrote:

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.

Thanks Blatham. It's called having values that transcend political party affiliation. Sadly, there are many here (and in this country) that do not share that idea, from all sides of the aisle.

0 Replies

Tico, I have my weaknesses, for some reason I always rise to bait when it involves clinton.

But I have a question for you and costal rat or anyone else. Do ya'll seriously think Clinton deserved to be impeached and should have been forced to step down as President for what he did? And do you think what he did in any way compares with this whole CIA debacle?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

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.

Funny how you can assume intentionalL on the part of Clinton but give the Bush administration a pass.

It was an accident instead of intentional that they told us about the WMD?

They weren't aware of the conflicting intelligence data? They certainly had access to it all.

Is your argument that they were incompetent?

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Tico, I have my weaknesses, for some reason I always rise to bait when it involves clinton.

But I have a question for you and costal rat or anyone else. Do ya'll seriously think Clinton deserved to be impeached and should have been forced to step down as President for what he did? And do you think what he did in any way compares with this whole CIA debacle?

Ok Revel, I'll step to the plate on this one. Yes, I seriously think Clinton deserved to be impeached and forced to step down. He committed perjury, was found to be in contempt of court, received sexual favors in his office, etc. I never ever could have cared less if he were screwing 50 different women, so long as it was on his time and in the personal living quarters of the White House. Had that only been the case, then I would not have given a rip about it.

Unlike some, I don't believe that there are degrees of criminal activity that would make some ok to overlook while others should not be overlooked. Otherwise, you get the situation we have here. Who decides what criminal activity is to be overlooked in an official and what is to be inappropriate and punishable? It basically would come down to which party is in the majority at the time. And that is wrong. Clinton broke the law and in my view is no different than someone from the Bush admin. who may have broken the law. I don't want any of them representing me in our government.

As to your second question, is what he did comparable to this CIA debacle? Only as regards the breaking of laws. It would be stupid of me to say that lying about sex is comparable in all aspects to what is being looked at now, simply because the ramifications are more serious in the current situation. The situations are only comparable in that in both cases it appears laws were broken, thus in both cases I would desire the same thing, the ouster of the person who flaunted and broke the law. The political reality of both cases may not result in what I would desire and what I believe the American people deserve, but it does not alter my opinion in any way.

I hope this helps. Unlike some, I don't get into demonizing Clinton for his foibles. He was just one more in a long line of politicians who could not keep his pants zippered up. Nor will I demonize Bush for personal idiosyncrises that others here like to make fun of. I condemn Clinton for making a mockery of our laws and of the office of President and will do the same for Bush or anyone else in this administration who does likewise (ie possibly DeLay, if the indictment sticks, or even if it doesn't if it appears he broke laws, whether he can ever be convicted of it or not).

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

I condemn Clinton for making a mockery of our laws and of the office of President and will do the same for Bush or anyone else in this administration who does likewise (ie possibly DeLay, if the indictment sticks, or even if it doesn't if it appears he broke laws, whether he can ever be convicted of it or not).

Again, I agree.

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

Yes, I seriously think Clinton deserved to be impeached and forced to step down. He committed perjury

Remind me, was Clinton judged to have committed perjury?

0 Replies

Nimh, I'm not sure if I know exactly what you mean by "judged." Clinton was not convicted of(nor was he prosecuted for) perjury. But I think it has been established quite clearly that he did so. (That is my opinion, by the way) I knew someone who was not convicted (or tried) for assault, but it does not change the fact that he assaulted someone.

As I stated, political reality does not always mean justice will be served. It does not change the fact, which is why it will not necessarily take a conviction to convince me laws were broken by a specific individual and as such that the individual should be removed from office.

0 Replies

For sure.

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

Nimh, I'm not sure if I know exactly what you mean by "judged." Clinton was not convicted of(nor was he prosecuted for) perjury. But I think it has been established quite clearly that he did so. (That is my opinion, by the way) I knew someone who was not convicted (or tried) for assault, but it does not change the fact that he assaulted someone.

As I stated, political reality does not always mean justice will be served. It does not change the fact, which is why it will not necessarily take a conviction to convince me laws were broken by a specific individual and as such that the individual should be removed from office.

It's all well and good that you think you have a standard CR. But it appears your standard is a mirage because you apply it based on your own prejudices. You ASSUME Clinton was guilty but want to wait until Delay is convicted. Clinton was never indicted yet you have decided he was guilty but we need to wait for the final word on GOPers.

Do you think the following statement shows a sense of fairness?

"I'm not sure if I know exactly what you mean by "judged." Libby has not been convicted of(nor yet prosecuted for) perjury. But I think it has been established quite clearly that he did so. (That is my opinion, by the way) I knew someone who was not convicted (or tried) for assault, but it does not change the fact that he assaulted someone. "

Your standard seems to be CR that if 20% of the country thinks a politician committed a crime then they should leave office. Or is it only if you are in that 20%?

0 Replies

You are either being deliberately obtuse or you just cannot comprehend what I have said. I never said I would only believe DeLay guilty and deserving of stepping down if convicted. I have not seen any evidence yet that I can base any opinion on. I think I have inferred quite well that there need not be a conviction for a crime to have been committed and justify a removal from office. After all, Clinton was not convicted in any court, but the evidence was quite clear that he had lied under oath. I believe he should have been removed from office. The same will be true of DeLay if the evidence is such that guilt is obvious, whether he ever is tried or convicted in court is immaterial. My stance here with DeLay and anyone else in this or any other administration is the same. Sorry if you are too dense to get that.

I have no idea where you get this 20% crap from, but go ahead and keep making up things. It doesn't hurt me any, nor does it further the discussion.

0 Replies

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.

I haven't finished reading yet, but I agree as well.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Tico, I have my weaknesses, for some reason I always rise to bait when it involves clinton.

But I have a question for you and costal rat or anyone else. Do ya'll seriously think Clinton deserved to be impeached and should have been forced to step down as President for what he did? And do you think what he did in any way compares with this whole CIA debacle?

I'll chime in on this one as well. Yes, I seriously think Clinton deserved to be impeached and should have been forced to step down as President for what he did. GW obviously misled the American people about MWD in Iraq. If he'd been under oath when he made the statements I would be screaming to have him impeached as well. Unfortunately, misleading the American people is politics as usual from both sides of the aisle.

If indictments come down this week against Rove and Libby then I think they should be dismissed. Impeachment is the constitutional process for a sitting President, I assume staff are dismissed. If they are found guilty of perjury or any other crime, they should get the full penalty allowed by law.

0 Replies

Perjury means nothing to a Republican, unless of course it's a Democrat. Smile

0 Replies

I agree, J_B, except maybe the part about misleading the American public. Beyond some point, it sounds like misprision.

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

I think I have inferred quite well that there need not be a conviction for a crime to have been committed and justify a removal from office. After all, Clinton was not convicted in any court, but the evidence was quite clear that he had lied under oath. I believe he should have been removed from office. The same will be true of DeLay if the evidence is such that guilt is obvious, whether he ever is tried or convicted in court is immaterial.

I think the point was that the evidence of the guilt of DeLay, in the commonsensical rather than court definition you suggest, is just as "obvious". Parados's point probably is that if you see Clinton's guilt as "obvious" but are not willing to see DeLay's guilt in the same terms yet, that betrays a double standard. But there's the alternative possibility that you simply have not read up yet - I myself have difficulty keeping up and remembering the complex muddle it is as well.

0 Replies

In all honesty Nimh, I have not seen a lot of evidence in the DeLay case. In Clinton's case (due in part to his loftier position) the evidence was constantly in the news and reported on. I think you would even admit that the facts are not out there in the DeLay case as they were in the Clinton case. Also, truthfully, the DeLay case is probably a bit more difficult to understand the particulars. In Clinton's case, he lied under oath, regardless, IMO of the way he played around with the words to prove otherwise.

In any case, we are in the early stages of the DeLay deal, not to mention the Libby deal. Plenty of time to let the facts come out in order to form an opinion based on facts rather than party loyalties.

It's funny really. I explain my viewpoint and someone who does not know when or how I formed an opinion on Clinton's deeds tells me basically that I am being a hypocrite. Democrats (and republicans) are all guilty of oftentimes closing their eyes on their own party's misdeeds while trying to point out the misdeeds of the other side. Let's face it, if politics was about honesty and morality and integrity, people like Teddy Kennedy, Clinton, Nixon and others whose names currently escape me would be dealt with by their own party and taken quietly from the scene. But it is all about power and control for both sides way too often. So the lawbreakers get a pass as long as they are smart enough and powerful enough to manipulate the system so they don't look as bad as they are.

0 Replies

I do see a difference in what Clinton mislead about which lead to his impeachment and this adminstration using all possible means to stifle dissent including trying to undermine intelligence that didn't agree with them. Clinton misleading statements were of a personal nature which didn't hurt anyone but himself. Whereas this CIA leak was malicious in nature and was designed to stifle dissent in order to bolster evidence to go to war. There is a difference which is plain to see.

However, I am going to let this drop as I don't like to keep repeating myself against brick walls. No hard feelings.

0 Replies

Of course there are no hard feelings Revel. You think your opinion is right, I think mine is right. All seems well with the world. Cool

0 Replies

Oh, and Revel, I agree that there is a difference between the two also. I admit as much. The CIA leak is of course more important in the big scheme of things.

It is the area where the two are the same that is/was of concern to me. That is, in both cases, laws were or may have been broken and flaunted. Clinton should have been removed in the same way that anyone here who has broken the law should be removed. The American people deserve to not have to put up with anyone who cannot obey the laws they are sworn to uphold, whether their name is Bush, Cheney, Clinton, Kennedy or your average Joe who serves on a local school board.

Ah well, now I will step down off my high horse and walk off into the sunset of make-believe land. Take care.

0 Replies

Anyone who still thinks that Clinton was guilty of perjury should read this article (.pdf).

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know