Bill O'Reilly caught lyin' again.

Man, your Clinton fellating is truly a sight to behold. It's gone from me being simply annoyed at your constant "B...b...b..b...BUT CLINTON!" bullsh*t, to actual amazement that no matter what the subject, not matter what the point of the thread is, you find a way to work him in. You should be studied by scientists.


Psst.... You might want to wipe your chin. Looks like you've got a little Clinton there.

Mr. Parados: I can, of course, refer you to Judge Posner's book but in an effort to give you a scholary reply I will attempt to replicate more of Judge Posner's writing on this subject so you may understand what he is saying:

quote-
An Affair of State--Richard A. Posner--P. 45

"Several of the false statements in Clinton's depositions were clearly perjurious.The first was his denial of having been alone with Monica Lewinsky except possibly on a few occasions, each no more than a few minutes in duration when she brought him documents.The only link between this denial and the truth is that the delivery of documents was a pretext that Clinton and Lewinksy sometimes used to conceal the purpose of his visits to his office, Since there was no actual delivery of doucmentions( certainly on most occasions, though on a few she may have handed himn a file folder in which she slipped some papers) his answer could not be thought even the literal truth, Nor is it conceivable that he had forgotten their sexual encounters or had forgotten that some of her visits had lasted for much more than a few minutes; a number of them had lasted for more than an hour.These are not the sort of things that peopole forget unless their memory is impaired; Clinton has, by all accounts, an excellent memory:"

I hope that this will help you, Mr. Parados. There is, of course, much more specific evidence in Judge Posner's book about the lies told by former President William Jefferson Clinton.


And, Mr. Parados, as you can see if you read my post thoroughly-

The headline states--CLINTON HANDS SLAPPED IN PLEA BARGAIN--

I stated-"Perhaps I was misinformed about "plea bargain".

Did you read that?

Nevertheless, Clinton's admission that he lied as llsted in the admission that he signed bears out the truth that while Clinton has been shown, by his own testimony, to be a liar, there is no document signed by President Bush in which President Bush admits lying.

Of course, the left wing may re-iterate the mantra that Bush lied but until President Bush is subject to a deposition, it is highly unlikely that anyone could hold the President to be a liar since no one knows all of the factors, some, of course, subject to the requirements of National Security, which went into his statements.

I hope that I have been helpful to you, sir!!

O'Reilly's solution: Run the place like Saddam
Published by Mike Stark June 19th, 2006 in Uncategorized
On today's (6/19/06) Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, Mr. Loofah-falafel shared with us his strategy for keeping the peace in Iraq. As the title notes, it involves ruthless murder.

O'Reilly: Now to me, they're not fighting it hard enough. See, if I'm president, I got probably another 50-60 thousand with orders to shoot on sight anybody violating curfews. Shoot them on sight. That's me… President O'Reilly… Curfew in Ramadi, seven o'clock at night. You're on the street? You're dead. I shoot you right between the eyes. Ok? That's how I run that country. Just like Saddam ran it. Saddam didn't have explosions - he didn't have bombers. Did he? because if you got out of line, your dead.

Now… is that the kind of country I want to have for Iraq? No… But you have to have that for a few months to stabilize the situation so the Iraqi government can get organized, can get security in place and can get the structure going.

I wanted to bend over backwards to be fair to Mr. O'Reilly, but I want y'all to listen to the clip. Listen to the way he says, "I shoot you right between the eyes." Y'all come back and tell me if you think he meant what he said in his follow up.

This, to my ears, was the epitome of the 101'st Fighting Keyboards with a microphone. I'm going to soon post more from today's show - he ridicules and refuses to take the call of a person that challenges him to put some of his own skin in the game.

Another question for Mr. O'Reilly? Haven't we killed enough pregnant women at checkpoints? You gonna shoot them right between the eyes when they go into unexpected labor?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Parados: I can, of course, refer you to Judge Posner's book but in an effort to give you a scholary reply I will attempt to replicate more of Judge Posner's writing on this subject so you may understand what he is saying:

quote-
An Affair of State--Richard A. Posner--P. 45

"Several of the false statements in Clinton's depositions were clearly perjurious.The first was his denial of having been alone with Monica Lewinsky except possibly on a few occasions, each no more than a few minutes in duration when she brought him documents.The only link between this denial and the truth is that the delivery of documents was a pretext that Clinton and Lewinksy sometimes used to conceal the purpose of his visits to his office, Since there was no actual delivery of doucmentions( certainly on most occasions, though on a few she may have handed himn a file folder in which she slipped some papers) his answer could not be thought even the literal truth, Nor is it conceivable that he had forgotten their sexual encounters or had forgotten that some of her visits had lasted for much more than a few minutes; a number of them had lasted for more than an hour.These are not the sort of things that peopole forget unless their memory is impaired; Clinton has, by all accounts, an excellent memory:"

I hope that this will help you, Mr. Parados. There is, of course, much more specific evidence in Judge Posner's book about the lies told by former President William Jefferson Clinton.

No. There may be some observations in Posner's book, there may be some pronouncements based on a peculiar point of view, but there is no evidence.

Opinions, everybody's got at least one, but unless the prosecution has re-opened the case against W.J.Clinton, all that is on the page is hash and re-hash.

Joe(Get help with your obsession at ican'tgetthatmanouttamymind.com)Nation

Mr. Nation. I really must point out that Judge Richard Posner writes from a position of authority and expertise. He, as the chief judge of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is indeed qualified to make comments on the transcripts he has studied.

I would respectfully suggest that you take any of his comments and show exactly WHY they are in error.

This, of course, you cannot do--THEREFORE, Judge Posner's commentary stands unrebutted!

and, of course, since this is a book that is only filled with opinions, it wouldn't gain much prestiege.
quote
An Affair of State
The Investigation, Impeachment, and Trial of President Clinton
Richard A. Posner
New York Times Book Review Editors' Choice for Best Book of the Year, 1999
Los Angeles Times Book Prize Finalist, 2000
President Bill Clinton's year of crisis, which began when his affair with Monica Lewinsky hit the front pages in January 1998, engendered a host of important questions of criminal and constitutional law, public and private morality, and political and cultural conflict.

In a book written while the events of the year were unfolding, Richard Posner presents a balanced and scholarly understanding of the crisis that also has the freshness and immediacy of journalism. Posner clarifies the issues and eliminates misunderstandings concerning facts and the law that were relevant to the investigation by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and to the impeachment proceeding itself. He explains the legal definitions of obstruction of justice and perjury, which even many lawyers are unfamiliar with. He carefully assesses the conduct of Starr and his prosecutors, including their contacts with the lawyers for Paula Jones and their hardball tactics with Monica Lewinsky and her mother. He compares and contrasts the Clinton affair with Watergate, Iran-Contra, and the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, exploring the subtle relationship between public and private morality. And he examines the place of impeachment in the American constitutional scheme, the pros and cons of impeaching President Clinton, and the major procedural issues raised by both the impeachment in the House and the trial in the Senate. This book, reflecting the breadth of Posner's experience and expertise, will be the essential foundation for anyone who wants to understand President Clinton's impeachment ordeal.

THE BOOK WAS ONLY THE NEW YORK TIMES BOOK REVIEW EDITORS CHOICE FOR THE BEST BOOK OF THE YEAR.

I do hope that Mr.Nation read the Editors comments --"He explains the legal definitions of obstruction of justice and perjruy which even many lawyers are unfamiliar with"

But what do the New York Times Book Review Editors know when compared to JOE NATION?

Bernie..

You still haven't explained how it is a lie for Clinton to say he was alone with Monica on a few occassions.

When you can do that then we can talk about the other Pozner claims.

Was Clinton alone with Monica on a few occassions? Yes or no? If Yes, then it isn't a lie.

What kind of a lousy editor writes a sentence ending in a preposition?

Joe(A condition I shall not put up with...) Nation


And answer Parados' question since Posner got it wrong.

Was Clinton alone with Monica on a few occasions? Yes or no? If Yes, then it isn't a lie.

First of all, the editors that Mr.Nation is upset with are only following the lead( I caught Mr.Nation's comment) of Winston Churchill who said, when admonished for ending a sentence with a preposition--"That is a pedantry with which I will not put"(Not- A condition- Mr. Nation)

Secondly, I am very much afraid that Mr. Nation and Mr. Parados are not familiar with the sterling credentials of Judge Posner. I invite them both to check them out on the Internet. I can say that, among his peers,he is considered to be one of the most learned and intelligent judges in the nation. If you can put the lie to that,please do so.

I already referenced the fact that the New York Times Book Editors listed his book-"An Affair of State" as the best non-fiction book of the year, but apparently that means nothing to Mr. Nation or Mr. Parados.

I do not want to make a post too long but I will do so and invite either Mr. Parados or Mr. Nation to rebut Judge Posner.

quote--"An Affair of State" P. 45

"Several of the false statements in Clinton's deposition were clearly perjurious. The first was his denial of ever have being alone with Monica Lewinsky possibly on a few occasions, EACH NO MORE THAN A FEW MINUTES IN DURATION, when she bought him documents. The only link between this denial is tha tthe delivery of documents was a pretext that Clinton and Lewinsky sometimes used to conceal the purpose of her visits to his office, Since there was NO ACTUAL DELIVERY OF DOUCMENTS(certainly on most occasions, though on a few she may have jokingly handed him a file folder into which she had slipped some papoers) HIS ANSWER COULD NOT BE THOUGHT EVEN THE LITERAL TRUTH. NOR IS IT CONCEIVABLE THAT HE HAD FORGOTTEN THEIR SEXUAL ENCOUNTERS, OR HAD FORGOTTEN THAT SOME OF HER VISITS HAD LASTED FOR M U C H M O R E THAN A FEW MINUTES; A N U M B E R O F T H E M H A D L A S T E D F O R M O R E T H A N A N H O U R. THESE ARE NOT THE SORT OF THING THAT PEOPLE FORGET UNLESS THIER MEMORY IS IMPAIRED; CLINTON HAS BY ALL ACCOUNTS AN EXCELLENT MEMORY."



I hope that this has been helpful.

Oh, yes, If you need more,Posner's next paragraph tells how Clinton lied about Monica's gifts to him and his gifts to her.

The paragraph after that tells how Clinton lied when he said he had never been "Alone" with Monica.

I'd have to read the actual statements made by an individual before making any judgement as to their truthfulness, but I'm not going to waste my time when I can read much better porn than that produced by Kenneth Starr and his conservative comrades. Perhaps the encounters seemed like a few minutes, time does fly when you are having fun or a blowjob or both. Fooling around takes a lot of energy, not as much energy as the amounts spent by pathetic unsexed conservatives intent on overthrowing the Clinton administration while investigating the minutia of each droplet of fun while using (and wasting) great gobs of our national treasure, but hey, they failed in their coup de tat, let them have some fun by going over each hair on Monica's bobbing head. As if it it mattered, as if it were important, as it is were something grownups would pay any attention to.

I ended that last sentence with a preposition especially for you, BernardR.

Joe(I'd say Mr. BernardR, but I only use that term with persons I respect.)Nation

That's nice Bernie. Thanks for proving that Pozner is merely speculating on whether the statement is true or not.


So Monica delivered papers as a pretext but it is a lie to claim she delivered papers? More of the same here Bernie.
How could she not deliver papers when she brought papers in a folder.

Whether it was a pretext or not doesn't matter. The only thing that matters for perjury law is that a statement is factually incorrect. If Monica brought papers which Posner says she did then the statement by Clinton that she brought papers can't be perjury.

Clinton said she showed up, he said she was alone. It is NOT perjury to fail to volunteer information beyond a simple factually correct answer. Until you can point to the specific question and the specific answer and show the answer is false there can be no perjury. Pozner fails to address the simple requirement of perjury law.

One would think Pozner would be well versed in Bronston.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=409&invol=352

By applying Bronston there is no way the claims of Pozner rise to perjury that can be charged.

Were Clinton's answers misleading? Yes.
Were they factually untrue? No.
By answering these 2 questions you get to the standard set in Bronston and there can be no perjury.

Mr. Parados-Note---P. 52- An Affair of State--

CLINTON REPEATED(again) UNDER OATH A NUMBER OF THE LIES IN HIS DEPOSITION AN GRAND JURY TESTIMONY. THE REPITITION WAS

CLEARLY DELIBERATE

AND CLEARLY MATERIAL TO THE COMMITTEE'S IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.


PERJURY BEFORE AND FALSE STATEMENTS TO CONGRESS ARE FEDERAL CRIMES.

See 18 U.S.C. SS 1621, 1000

Perjury- definition( from Black's Law Dictionary- Sixth Edition- P/ 1139.



A person is guilty of perjury if in ANY OFFICIAL PROCEEDING( a Grand Jury is an official proceeding) he makes a false statement under oath( clinton was under oath) when the statement is material and he does not believe it to be true

Maybe he believed the statements to be truthful, George believed in his fantasy of weapons of mass destruction, they both turned out to be wrong. No weapons and it took longer to get his nut off than he remembered. One stained a blue dress, the other has eviscerated our standing amongst the nations of the world.

Joe(not the same, buddyboy)Nation

Bernie has repeated a number of lies.

Notice I haven't mentioned what the lies are or provided any citation of when you said them or proof that the statement was a lie. Nor do I have to using the standard set by you and Posner. Simply stating that you lied is proof enough.

Well,let us see what we have here. Mr. Parados says that Clinton did not lie.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=a21007-200

Quote

If you think that link works, you lie.

Joe(by your standards)Nation

He lies even if he don't think it works.....

Me likes that joke.

If he was a non-entity and not dangerous to the left wing liberals, no one would even bother to attack him.