Bill O'Reilly caught lyin' again.

I still do not have a reference for the book mentioned by Roxxxanne.

I'm crushed, simply crushed, that Mr. Bernard has called my comments irrelevant. How could you be so cruel? Oh the humanity!

Mr. DrewDad--- sir- Don't you mean "The Inhumanity" instead of "The Humanity"???

Man, you really are clueless, aren't you?

I coulda sworn I saw the phrase "Oh the humanity!" in a book about the Kennedys once. Huh. Oh well.

Mr.Snood, I may be as clueless as Mr. DeLay and Mr. Jefferson!!!

"Oh the humanity" One of the most memorable lines in the 29th Century and it goes right over his head.

well, it was a comment about a dirigible filled with hydrogen so that makes sense.

In the early 1950s, Joe McCarthy's fans were untroubled by his blatant lies...Feb 9, 1950, "I have here in my hand a list of 205 [State Department employees who were members of the Communist Party] that were known to the Secretary of State..."; on Feb 20, he gave the figure of 81, and at a point between those two dates he claimed there were 57. That no evidence was ever advanced for his claims was equally untroubling to McCarthy's fans. Why ought we to assume that O'Reilly's fans or Coulter's fans or even Bush's fans will behave any differently?

I know you meant "20th Century", but it still made me stop & double-take.

Mr. Blatham references McCarthy's lies as an example. He need not go that far back. He can find the American Republic's master of lies if he only goes back to the 1990's. Of course, I mean, William Jefferson Clinton, who thoroughly outclassed McCarthy. The Munchausian exploits of Bill Clinton are pehaps best highlighted in his ridiculous comments that "he didn't inhale" and " He was never really alone with Monica"

McCarthy was an amateur compared to Bill Clinton!

BerardR hasn't a clue who McCarthy was or what he meant to the political structure of this nation or he wouldn't make such pathetic comparisons.

Joe(It was in all those books he didn't read, but read about.)Nation

Oh, please, Mr. Nation. I am quite familiar with the late Senator Joseph McCarthy. Even very conservative writers such as Mr.Paul Johnson, in his work-"Modern History" excoriate Mr. McCarthy.

Johnson writes:

quote

"McCarthy was repudiated, censured and, in effect, extinguished by how own colleagues the Senate."

A Senator who was "censured" by his colleagues for libeling people and destroying their reputations based on unsupported allegations.

That was almost as bad as the Impeachement of a President who assured the American People on National TV that he had had no sexual relationship with a young intern in the Oval Office.

THIS, THIS is the f**king example that leads these delusional folk to make such asinine statements. You should be ashamed of your country that the question was even asked.

And this constitutes a "master of lies"!

Dlowan's name for Okie leaps to mind.

The term "master of lies" is not used easily, however, when reviewing the statements made by Presidents, present and former, I can find no president who told as many lies as President Clinton.

He is also the only one, as far as I am aware, who took a plea bargain (in order to escape indictment,) in which he admitted lying in court.

Ther esteemed jurist, Richard A. Posner, in his book-"An Affair of State" has written:

"It is clear that Clinton perjured himself in the Paula Jones deposition, even though as Clinton's defenders emphasized,the crime of perjury is narrowly defined in federal law"--P. 44

and

"Several of the statements in Clinton's deposition were clearly perjurious".
P.45

"In his testimony before the grand jury, Clinton repeated many of the lies he told at his deposition"P. 46

These are onlu three of the several dozen comments which show that Clinton lied.

What else can he be called? A novice liar? No, his history reveals that he is and was a "master liar"

eg-- I did experiment with Marijuana but I didn't inhale--

Just wait. You'll find out.

Quite the lie there Bernard.. It certainly is a factual untruth and at this point you should be aware of the lack of veracity in such a statement.

Plea bargain requires a plea which is why it is called a plea bargain. A plea requires a pleading in court and acceptance by a judge.
Clinton didn't take a plea bargain since he never pled to any crimes nor was he charged with any crimes. An agreement to not charge a crime at all is not a plea bargain. It doesn't meet the definition of plea bargain. If anything it would be under "prosecutor's discretion" on charging a crime.

I find it funny that Pozner doesn't cite the perjurious statements. He only says there are some. It seems Mr Pozner can't provide facts only innuendo.

If you would care to start a thread, cite the statements and provide facts, feel free. Pozner didn't do it for very good reason. He couldn't defend his statements if he was specific.

Perhaps I was misinformed!! But,you read the article---Please be aware that this took place during the time when "Special Prosecutors" had special powers--

source:

http://www.888webtoday.com/beezley251.html

_____________________________________________________________

Clinton Hands Slapped in Plea Bargain

WASHINGTON, D.C., January 20, 2001 (Web Today)?-Independent prosecutor Robert Ray struck a deal with Bill Clinton on his last full day in the White House, letting the departing President off with little more than a hand slap.

In exchange for a five-year suspension of his law license, $25,000 in fines and an agreement not to seek reimbursement of legal fees, Clinton was given a pass for knowingly offering misleading testimony during his taped deposition in the Paula Jones civil proceedings.

Clinton also issued a vague apology for what he never clearly admits to have been illegal conduct.

While the last-minute arrangement spares incoming President George W. Bush the politically charged decision of whether to issue a blanket pardon for his predecessor, it also spares Clinton the embarrassment of facing disbarment proceedings in his home state, Arkansas.

It also allows Ray to claim that his lengthy investigation of the president accomplished something at the taxpayers' expense.

But it clearly appears now that Bill Clinton will not be wearing prison stripes in his retirement, after all.

The text of Clinton's "I'm sorry" (but not really too sorry) statement…follows.



_____________________________________________________________________________
Jan 19, 2001


Today, I signed a consent order in the lawsuit brought by the Arkansas Committee on Professional Conduct which brings to an end that proceeding.

I have accepted a five-year suspension of my law license, agreed to pay a $25,000 fine to cover counsel fees, and acknowledged a violation of one of the Arkansas model rules of professional conduct because of testimony in my Paula Jones case deposition. The disbarment suit will now be dismissed.

I have taken every step I can to end this matter. I've already settled the Paula Jones case, even after it was dismissed as being completely without legal and factual merit. I have also paid court and counsel fees and restitution and been held in civil contempt for my deposition testimony regarding Ms. Lewinsky, which Judge Wright agreed had no bearing on Ms. Jones case, even though I disagreed with the findings in the judge's order.

I will not seek any legal fees incurred as a result of the Lewinsky investigation to which I might otherwise become entitled under the Independent Counsel Act.

I have had occasion frequently to reflect on the Jones case. In this consent order, I acknowledge having knowingly violated Judge Wright's discovery orders in my deposition in that case. I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal and that certain of my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false.

I have apologized for my conduct and I have done my best to atone for it with my family, my administration and the American people. I have paid a high price for it, which I accept because it caused so much pain to so many people. I hope my actions today will help bring closure and finality to the matters.


Bill Clinton

President of the United States

I want to assure you, Mr.Parados, that Judge Posner is one of the most brilliant judges in the United States, He knows his law. The fault is not his but rather mine in not replicating more of his statement from his book--An Affair of State-

P. 44.

"It is clear that Clinton perjured himself in the Paula Jones deposition, even though, as Clinton's defenders emphasized, the crime of perjury is narrowly defined in federal law...Several of the false statements in Clinton's deposition were clearly perjurious. The first was his denial of having ever been alone with Monica Lewinsky except possibly on a few occasions, each no more than a few minutes in duration....The President also clearly and materially lied when he said that Monica Lewinsky had given him only one or two gifts; that he had no recollection of ever having given her any gifts.

He lied when he said that he had never been "alone" with Lewinsky."


end of quote


There are many more instances of lying. The book is great-Get a copy!

An Affair of State by Richard Posner

Nothing about a plea bargain there.


So he lied when he said he was alone with Monica on a few occassions?

How can Clinton lie about never being alone with Monica in the same testimony he said he was alone with her on a few occassions? There are some real issues with your and Pozner's reading of this. They both can't be true. Either Clinton said he was alone with Monica on a few occassions or not. If he said he possibly was alone with her on a few occassions then he can't have committed perjury about never being alone with her.