Dem corruption starts now.

okie wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Clinton himself admitted to his lies. How is it even possible that idiots continue to deny them?

The answer is "emotional attachment." I am not a shrink, but I think it is probably something along those lines.

bush himself admitted the war has been a disaster. how is it even possible that idiots continue to deny it?

The answer is "emotional attachment". I am not a shrink, but I think it is probably something along those lines.

Of course Clinton's semen is not a deadly weapon. No one has been killed or lost body parts from it.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Joe, don't fall into Kuvasz's fallacious attempt to paint me as having claimed Clinton was convicted. I did no such thing.

I never said you did and I have no idea why you think I said that.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Considering the purpose of his testimony, other inappropriate relationships are very much "material" which is why he was ORDERED to testify truthfully in the first place. He did not.

The judge in the Jones case ruled that all of the evidence regarding Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky would be inadmissible at trial. So how is that testimony "material" to the Jones suit?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Attempts to pretend the Q&A was ambiguous are as transparent as Clinton's subsequently admitted to lies.

Kuvasz's arguments are his own. I never said that I believed Clinton's deposition testimony was truthful: I don't think it was. But then I also don't believe that it was perjurious.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Play word games all day long if it makes you happy, but the FACTs remain the same. Had Clinton not perjured himself; he wouldn't have been impeached and he wouldn't have had his license suspended. If this isn't so; please explain why he lost his License.

First of all, the house of representatives considered an article of impeachment based on Clinton's alleged perjury, but ultimately did not adopt it. As stated in the article I previously cited:

The House rejected the second article of impeachment presented to it by the Judiciary Committee, which charged that "William Jefferson Clinton, in sworn answers to written questions asked as part of a Federal civil rihts action brought against him, willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony in response to questions deemed relevant by a Federal judge...."
So, although it can be argued that Clinton's alleged perjury provided the motivation for his ultimate impeachment, it did not constitute one of the articles of impeachment.

Secondly, Clinton did not admit to committing perjury when he entered into a settlement regarding surrendering his law license. He admitted to giving false testimony under oath, which (I'll say again) is not the same thing as perjury. Again, from the article:

Perjury is not [i]simply[/i] an offense against the administration of justice. Some judicial lies are not punishable as perjury; only those lies that have the "natural tendency" to affect the outcome of the proceedings constitute perjury. In other words, perjury requires a [i]material[/i] false statement.(emphasis in original) To put it simply: the testimony regarding Clinton's consensual relationship with Lewinsky was not material to Paula Jones's suit regarding her alleged non-consensual relationship with Clinton -- as the judge recognized when she ruled that the evidence regarding Lewinsky would be inadmissible in Jones's case. Jones couldn't have won her case by proving that Clinton had consensual sex with Lewinsky any more than she could have won her case by proving that he had consensual sex with Hillary.

Now, as you know, O'BILL, I would normally defer to you and your greater legal knowledge on such complicated issues of jurisprudence, but in this particular case I think you are mistaken.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

okie wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:

Clinton himself admitted to his lies. How is it even possible that idiots continue to deny them?

The answer is "emotional attachment." I am not a shrink, but I think it is probably something along those lines.

bush himself admitted the war has been a disaster. how is it even possible that idiots continue to deny it?

Can you provide quotes or at least one quote to verify that Bush said "the war has been a disaster" ?

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Jones couldn't have won her case by proving that Clinton had consensual sex with Lewinsky any more than she could have won her case by proving that he had consensual sex with Hillary.

This is an opinion, not a fact, and I disagree. A man with a history of inappropriate consensual sexual relationships could certainly be viewed as more likely to be guilty of a non-consensual offense, than one who has never had inappropriate consensual sexual relationships. Hence, it is relevant in assessing his character. When attempting to satisfy a preponderance of the evidence; this single, seemingly unimportant piece of information could very well have been the final nail in the coffin. That this judge or that agrees or disagrees, doesn't change the nature of the offense.

A conviction is not necessary to prove a crime took place. Some murderers will be convicted, while others may never even be accused. Same goes for perjurers. As your article states; few perjurers are ever tried let alone convicted. But they are perjurers just the same as the untried, un-convicted murderers are still murderers.

If a court approves a plea bargain of a guilty plea for Disorderly Conduct, instead of prosecuting the accused for Vandalism does that mean the Vandalism didn't take place? If it did, is the accused not a Vandal whether he was convicted as such or not?

[url=http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/perjury]Legal Dictionary[/url] wrote:

perjury n. the crime of intentionally lying after being duly sworn (to tell the truth) by a notary public, court clerk or other official. This false statement may be made in testimony in court, administrative hearings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, as well as by signing or acknowledging a written legal document (such as affidavit, declaration under penalty of perjury, deed, license application, tax return) known to contain false information. Although a crime, prosecutions for perjury are rare, because a defendant will argue he/she merely made a mistake or misunderstood.

Clinton didn't argue he made a mistake or misunderstood in his settlement: On the contrary; "Clinton explicitly admits that 'certain of my responses' were false when he gave 1998 deposition about Lewinsky in Paula Jones sexual misconduct suit". This is perjury. Clever word games, loopholes, and alternate interpretations of perjury do not make this one any less valid. When I write Clinton committed perjury; I am stating a fact, proven by his own admission.

joefromchicago wrote:

Now, as you know, O'BILL, I would normally defer to you and your greater legal knowledge on such complicated issues of jurisprudence, but in this particular case I think you are mistaken.

You are the best I know of at arguing the wrong side of any subject. But, you're still wrong. Clinton committed perjury, was impeached for it, and lost his Law license because of it. It matters not that he wasn't convicted of it. The facts remain the same.

John Wayne Gacy was a murderer, who had committed murder, long before he was convicted of murder.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

This is an opinion, not a fact, and I disagree.

Of course it's an opinion. In fact, it's an opinion based on a counterfactual. We don't know if Jones would have prevailed in her lawsuit, because she settled it before it ever reached trial. But one thing I am certain of: Jones couldn't have introduced evidence to the jury of Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky, because that evidence was barred by the judge.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

A man with a history of inappropriate consensual sexual relationships could certainly be viewed as more likely to be guilty of a non-consensual offense, than one who has never had inappropriate consensual sexual relationships. Hence, it is relevant in assessing his character. When attempting to satisfy a preponderance of the evidence; this single, seemingly unimportant piece of information could very well have been the final nail in the coffin. That this judge or that agrees or disagrees, doesn't change the nature of the offense.

You are so wrong that you can't even see right from where you stand. That kind of character evidence is simply not admissible at trial. At most, a person's character can be proved by similar bad acts. Consensual sex, however, is not even a bad act, let alone similar to non-consensual sexual assault.

I don't normally say this, because I respect people who achieve a certain level of self-taught expertise in areas of specialized knowledge, but you are in way over your head on this one. If you knew the first thing about the law, you'd know that you are wrong here. Just because you represented yourself in court doesn't make you a legal expert, O'BILL.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

A conviction is not necessary to prove a crime took place.

I'm not sure who you're arguing with, but it's not with me. I never said that it was necessary to convict Clinton of perjury in order for him to have been a perjurer. Indeed, I agree with you on this point. A conviction is immaterial. I just don't think that Clinton committed perjury.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Clinton didn't argue he made a mistake or misunderstood in his settlement: On the contrary; "Clinton explicitly admits that 'certain of my responses' were false when he gave 1998 deposition about Lewinsky in Paula Jones sexual misconduct suit". This is perjury.

No it's not.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

You are the best I know of at arguing the wrong side of any subject.

Sadly, I cannot say the same for you. But you're certainly one of the most persistent.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

But, you're still wrong. Clinton committed perjury, was impeached for it, and lost his Law license because of it. It matters not that he wasn't convicted of it. The facts remain the same.

How odd that you didn't address two points that I made in the post to which you responded. I'll repeat them here to give you another opportunity to ignore them:

(1) The judge in the Jones case ruled that all of the evidence regarding Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky would be inadmissible at trial. So how is that testimony "material" to the Jones suit?

(2) The house of representatives considered an article of impeachment based on Clinton's alleged perjury, but ultimately did not adopt it. So how can you argue that Clinton was impeached for perjury?

0 Replies

I claim no expertise in Law, Joe, and generally refer to my experiences at defending my self as episodes of idiocy, so I don't know why you'd suggest otherwise. I can, however, read. I know you are the expert, and can read as well, but there is no evidence to that effect in your understanding of Article I of the impeachment by the House, which I'll lay out for you as clearly as I can.

joefromchicago wrote:

(1) The judge in the Jones case ruled that all of the evidence regarding Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky would be inadmissible at trial. So how is that testimony "material" to the Jones suit?

Apparently the Judge decided it wasn't; so what? That didn't change the fact that he was impeached for it, nor the fact that he lost his license because of it.

joefromchicago wrote:

(2) The house of representatives considered an article of impeachment based on Clinton's alleged perjury, but ultimately did not adopt it. So how can you argue that Clinton was impeached for perjury?

This is simply untrue They did indeed adopt 1 of 2 Articles for perjury:
Article I: Perjury before grand jury on August 17, 1998 (Paula Jones)Approved by House 228-206

Full Text of Article I:
Article I

Quote:

In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice, in that:
On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following: (1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee; (2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him; (3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.

In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.

I don't know how that could be made any clearer for you Joe.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Apparently the Judge decided it wasn't; so what? That didn't change the fact that he was impeached for it, nor the fact that he lost his license because of it.

So what?

By asking that, you display how little you know of perjury law. As I have pointed out to you in the past, perjury is more than just making a false statement under oath. The statement also has to be material: if it isn't, then it's not perjury, no matter how false it is. The judge ruled that the testimony regarding Lewinsky was not admissible in the Paula Jones lawsuit. That's a pretty good indication that it wasn't material. And if it wasn't material, then any false statements that Clinton made about his affair with Lewinsky was not perjury.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
(2) The house of representatives considered an article of impeachment based on Clinton's alleged perjury, but ultimately did not adopt it. So how can you argue that Clinton was impeached for perjury?
This is simply untrue They did indeed adopt 1 of 2 Articles for perjury:
Article I: Perjury before grand jury on August 17, 1998 (Paula Jones)Approved by House 228-206

Sorry, I should have made myself clearer. I have been talking all along about Clinton's deposition testimony (and I thought you were as well). The House considered an article of impeachment that alleged that Clinton had perjured himself at his deposition in the Jones case. That article was not adopted by the House.

But then it really doesn't matter, does it? After all, you've emphasized all along that it makes no difference to his actual guilt whether he was convicted of perjury or not. How much less, then, does it matter whether he was merely indicted for perjury or not (impeachment is the equivalent of a criminal indictment, not a conviction). Just because he was impeached for perjurious statements to the grand jury doesn't mean that Clinton actually perjured himself.

0 Replies

Joe, whether you call it perjury, or whatever, suffice it to say Bill was a pathological liar. Can we all agree on that? We don't need to a court of law to observe the obvious.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Joe, whether you call it perjury, or whatever, suffice it to say Bill was a pathological liar. Can we all agree on that?

No.

I am not sufficiently well-acquainted with that pathology to make an informed opinion on whether Clinton is or was a pathological liar. I am, however, glad to see that your extensive medical and psychiatric training, as well as your first-hand observation of the patient, have led you to render this particular diagnosis.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

okie wrote:
Joe, whether you call it perjury, or whatever, suffice it to say Bill was a pathological liar. Can we all agree on that?

No.

I am not sufficiently well-acquainted with that pathology to make an informed opinion on whether Clinton is or was a pathological liar. I am, however, glad to see that your extensive medical and psychiatric training, as well as your first-hand observation of the patient, have led you to render this particular diagnosis.

But yo DO admit that Clinton was a liar and a cheating husband,right?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

But yo DO admit that Clinton was a liar and a cheating husband,right?

I think it's pretty well established that Clinton cheated on his wife and he lied about it.

0 Replies

Would you also agree Clinton was accused of rape, and just maybe he lied about that as well? After all, that is not a huge leap of faith.

Actually, I don't care about the Clintons anymore, I wish we could forget both of them.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Would you also agree Clinton was accused of rape, and just maybe he lied about that as well? After all, that is not a huge leap of faith.

And we know that it's not a huge leap of faith because the majority of husbands who cheat on their wives are also rapists, and US presidents rarely get accused of something that is completely fabricated.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Would you also agree Clinton was accused of rape, and just maybe he lied about that as well? After all, that is not a huge leap of faith.

Clinton may also be an android replicant from the Crab Nebula. Anything's possible, I suppose.

okie wrote:

Actually, I don't care about the Clintons anymore, I wish we could forget both of them.

Asherman was the first person to bring up Clinton's name in this thread. You may want to talk with him about that.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
Would you also agree Clinton was accused of rape, and just maybe he lied about that as well? After all, that is not a huge leap of faith.

And we know that it's not a huge leap of faith because the majority of husbands who cheat on their wives are also rapists, and US presidents rarely get accused of something that is completely fabricated.

If you wish to draw parallels, oe, how many husbands are accused of rape with credible evidence? Actually, I don't care to wallow in this mire, but the Clinton apologists continue to abound, apparently, and continue to admire this dysfunctional couple with criminal histories. Now this country has to endure another election with a Clinton involved, and just this morning the report that if Hillary wins, Bill could take her place in NY. Why don't the press wise up and scuttle this pair back to Arkansas, or NY or wherever. Surely, we have better options than these people.

0 Replies

okie the name Clinton draws you faster than a fly to a turd.... what the hell is this I don't want to talk about them crap? Laughing

0 Replies

Well, Hillary is running, and unfortunately, many say she already has it in the bag. I still remember how shocked I was on election night in 92, I was incredulous and stunned in disbelief that the voters could actually do what they did, so here we are again fighting the same old pathetic argument.

0 Replies

what argument is that?

0 Replies

The "Clinton" argument, obviously. Defenders vs those of us that wish they would just go home and get a real job, for a change.

0 Replies

Most of this is I'm sure important to the partisans of both parties. It is however, not on point. Clinton was impeached for committing felonies while in office (see the Bill of Impeachment). The Democrats saw the whole affair as inconsequential sexcapades, while we Republicans saw violations of law. The Senate voted to acquit, and thats that. Was Clinton corrupt? We tend to think so, but we could be wrong on that.

The bottom line is that politicians, no matter there party or political philosophy, remain human. Humans are tempted to violate social and legal constraints for basically the same reasons. Some find "good" excuses for their behavior, and others refrain from temptations. A person of the highest character might slip on occasion, and the slimiest rogue can sometimes act the role of hero. We have to get beyond the need to require and regard our political leadership as spotless angels, because no one will ever meet those standards.
In fact, being transparently and constantly honest is a handicap in a national leader. Diplomacy to be effective often requires a certain amount of duplicity, and it is insane to broadcast to one's enemies your true intentions and order of battle. Effective leadership is dependent upon sound intelligence, and that in turn is truly the shadow world where separation of truth from lies is very ambiguous. Counter-intelligence is almost by definition creation of "lies" intended to mislead and reduce the effectiveness of the enemy. What is the "Truth"? One is always making judgments and interpretations of data based on one's Weltanschaung. A different outlook, even if absolutely sincere, might easily produce a very different perception of what is, or is not "True". The best we can hope for is that our national leaders get it "right" more often than they get it "wrong". What is the difference? The difference will is the long-term outcome of trend lines that might not even be discernible for decades after any political decision. Just one example, I believe that Presidents Ford and Carter were men of high character who truly tried to lead the country in accordance with the highest principles, yet neither administration was effective in foreign relations. On the other hand, the all to human administrations of other Presidents preserved the nation and defeated both the Axis and Soviet Union. Every Administration had its opponents both at home and abroad, and every Administration mistakes in their policy decision making. Let the dead, bury the dead.

The Constitution, which has served this country and the world so well, is the best control we have for maintaining a free and humanistic polity. Our Founders recognized the need for vesting leadership in a single person, the President. Being wise to the inherent failures of men, the Founders provided checks and balances to prevent any seizure of power beyond that necessary for the Legislature, Executive, or Court to perform their proper function.

The two Parties are in a constant struggle for the support and election votes of the People to fill those three branches. The arena is ultimately the hearts and minds of simple citizens who may not give a fig for all the political theory and rhetoric they are bombarded with. Everyman wants to prosper for himself and his family first, and for his country as a close second. What issues stir the emotions and prompt Everyman to take one political side, or the other? Conservatives and Liberals have very different ideas about what will be best for the nation and for its citizens. For either to fully marginalize the other would be a national disaster.

Slander and focus on the all to human failings of politicians is certainly one tactic that can rouse the emotions, but isn't that ultimately more destructive to our system of government than any short term gains that might be achieved? What has happened is that many outstanding political leaders are dissuaded from exposing themselves and their families to the gutter-sniping that attends any public service today.

BTW, if you go back and read carefully my initial remarks you will probably discover that far from condemning President Clinton, I commented that we should be more tolerant of his personal failings. The central issue should not be on his sexual proclivities, but rather upon whether he violated the law while acting as President. He was tried by the Senate and acquitted, presumably because the Senate recognized that some violations of law by a sitting President are not material enough to justify conviction. In the future impeachment proceeding will, I expect, follow that precedent. Time to move on.

0 Replies

Dem corruption starts now.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know