What's new

Truth Hurt?

It is perjury only if the false statement is material to the case, i.e., if it could affect the outcome of the investigation (see post 68 in this thread).

In Clinton's case, independent counsel Ken Starr investigated ancient allegations of sexual harassment while Clinton was governor of Arkansas. The lie concerned a consensual sexual encounter which took place years later. Whether the President had oral sex with Monica Lewinski, who was a willing partner, did not help prove whether or not Clinton sexually harassed Paula Corbin Jones or Jennifer Flowers.


I am not a lawyer and I have no case law to support this but I recall hearing/reading that when a boss (Governor/POTUS) has sex with a subordinate it cannot be consensual. Kind of like a sex with a minor. Even if the minor did in deed consent, the law does not recognize the consent.

Can easily see the 'victim' saying that she consented because she thought her job was at stake and she had no choice if she wanted to feed her family....etc.

They may have also been trying to establish a pattern of behavior/lying. Clinton should have either refused to answer or told the truth. He screwed up and paid the price. This country is far more interested in sex than in what is really screwing this country. Clinton failed to recognize that.
 
Cos....
What you imply about GW.... :lol: Hells bells......you fail to notice all the slurs from the Hillary camp against Obama but it was always some operative and she "never new" or was "baking a cake" that day.

Remember Bill and Hillary sublimely implying Hes black,he can't win Guess he showed them :lol:

They all stoop.....everyone.
 
Dell, attacking Obama is one thing. Attacking Obamas children is another. I could care less what GW said about McCain. I could care less if GW called McCain everything but a 'white boy'. What GW did was take an act by the McCains, twisted it into something that was beyond a lie and used it to get McCain out of the primary. He used the adoption of a black child and questioned the origin of that child. He accused the child/McCain of being an illegitimate child. It was a lie then, its a lie now. Everyone knew it wa a lie than and we all know its a lie now. GW/Rove did not care. They were out to win and given the racist climate of this nation they knew they would be safe. IMO they did it intentionally with forethought and malice. That crosses all boundaries of decency and morality.

If McCain or Clinton wanted to call Obama a Uncle Tom, have at it. He is the candidate and he is fair game. That is the way this slime fest we call politics is played, but in my book, you do not screw with children, elderly or animals. GW crossed that line. As far as I am aware, no other candidate (Republican, Democrat or other) has ever done that.
 
What has always confused me is when people speak of character and politicians people always seem to forget what GW did against McCain in 2000 when campaigning in SC.

First, it tends to support what someone else was saying about the mentality of the 'right' in SC since why would GW/Rove have used such tactics if they did not think it would work.

Secondly, the fact that GW/Rove would stoop to such revolting tactics to win a race is IMO, a sad coment on the US given that a majority of voters in this country still cast a ballot for him.

I have seen and heard politicians do some really nasty and pathetic things to get into office or out of trouble but to use a innocent child as a means to draw out racists and get their vote, that is one of the absolute things worst that can be done. GW's actions will follow that child around for the rest of her life. Ms. McCain had to explain to her 10 or 11 year old child what had happened.

GW is not a man. He is a coward who thinks the end justify the means. He will do anything to get what he wants with out regard for who gets hurt in the process. He has conducted his administration in the same manner that he conducted his campaign.

Yes politicians are generally a pail of pond scum. Some better than others but few have ever be worthy of a kind word. That being said, IMO, I hope GW has a special place in Hell waiting for his pathetic carcass. He has set this country back decades. He makes McCarthy look like a alter boy.

As for impeachable offenses. He took an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." I would argue that given the vagueness of the articles of impeachment, one could easily make a case that he failed to do so. He knowingly placed the US military in harms way based on false pretenses. He has lied to 'We the people' more times than I can count of matters far more important than whether he got a BJ in the Oval. As far as I am concerned, every time a POTUS opens he mouth to the people of the US, he should be considered under oath. He works for me. I pay his salary and he damn well better not lie to the share holders.

Having said that, we have far more important issues to take care of than to conduct some circus court to hold that nit wit liable for what history will condemn him for in due time.
Actually, I still maintain that W is guilty of treason with his "bring 'em on" comments -urging the enemy to attack our troops.
 
This country is far more interested in sex than in what is really screwing this country. Clinton failed to recognize that.
At least that Congress was more interested in sex. I mean, if Clinton would have done something like take out bin laden, or preemptively attack Iraq to get Saddam out of power, he would have been chastised for trying to "take the focus off the Lewinsky affair". It's a damn wonder Clinton was able to accomplish anything with Starr "investigating" any allegation that anybody came up with.
 
KCFlyer,

It will get REAL Interesting, once Barack Obama names..Patrick Fitzgerald(from Illinois NO less), the ATTORNEY GENERAL of the UNITED STATES. :shock: :shock:
 
At least that Congress was more interested in sex. I mean, if Clinton would have done something like take out bin laden, or preemptively attack Iraq to get Saddam out of power, he would have been chastised for trying to "take the focus off the Lewinsky affair". It's a damn wonder Clinton was able to accomplish anything with Starr "investigating" any allegation that anybody came up with.

What administration was that movie made during...you know,the one about the dog and its tail?

Cosworth.....can you tell me whats a Cos worth these days? :lol:

Funny but you have a very short memory of Dem's and Gops and both having penchants for each others personal lives.....and knocking someone out of a primary....how trivial....thats how its done old katze.

Sexual inuendos always made for spicy press back in the day and still do.....
 
What administration was that movie made during...you know,the one about the dog and its tail?

Cosworth.....can you tell me whats a Cos worth these days? :lol:

Funny but you have a very short memory of Dem's and Gops and both having penchants for each others personal lives.....and knocking someone out of a primary....how trivial....thats how its done old katze.

Sexual inuendos always made for spicy press back in the day and still do.....
Yes Dell...but the right tends to want to blame Clinton's inaction on the terrorist issue as the reason we were attacked on September 11. The fact is, he was facing some sort of "investigation" since the day he said "so help me God" in 1993. If he would have done the exact same thing as GW Bush...told the world that Saddam had ignored the NATO inspections and unilaterally invaded Iraq to oust him, rather than applauding him for ridding the world of an evil dicator, they would have said he was just trying to avoid the focus on an evil "dick-tator".
 
Actually, what's easy is this - NHBB has not held back in his dislike of Little W and Big Dick. But he's never made a disparaging remark about a poster who disagreew with him.

Why are you so focused on defending NHBB's?

It seems very odd that you find it necessary to stand up for him at every turn.

Is he not capable of doing that himself?
 
Why are you so focused on defending NHBB's?

It seems very odd that you find it necessary to stand up for him at every turn.

Is he not capable of doing that himself?


///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

BELIEVE ME.."tech".................KCFlyer doesn't have to !!

Could it BE, that KCFlyer knows a Sham when he see's/hears one ?
Could it be, that KCFlyer can separate Issues like religion and Politics ?

(trust me, I could go on, and on, and on) !

"Some" of the JCL's(johnny come latelys) to this board(s)..don't REMEMBER when KCFlyer & I went at each other with a vengeance, over Issues.

(But ALWAYS with A measure of Respect)
 
Why are you so focused on defending NHBB's?

It seems very odd that you find it necessary to stand up for him at every turn.

Is he not capable of doing that himself?

Does a Liberal double team much like what you accuse me and Local 12 of bother you?
 
Why are you so focused on defending NHBB's?

It seems very odd that you find it necessary to stand up for him at every turn.

Is he not capable of doing that himself?
I'm a stand up guy...what can I say. And yes, he's quite capable of doing that himself. But when a poster (tug) includes in their response things that question the intellect (GED) or the "manhood" (take your man purse), then he pretty much lowers whatever statement he was trying to make. I'm only trying to HELP tug...make your point and leave the personal comments out. Bears does.
 
I never liked Travolta so I did not see the movie.

I do not see how Clinton could have gone after OBL with out justification. I sure as hell would have been a bit ticked off. No one had heard of OBL till 9/11 happened. Had Clinton sent in troops to take care of OBL (an unknown at that time) the people on both sides would have been upset and had a field day.

Had GW tired to invade Afghanistan or Iraq prior to 9/11 he never would have received authorization from his own party much less the democrats. so I believe that entire argument falls flat on it's face. Just as WW II required Pearl to light the fuse, the ME cluster phuck we are in now required 9/11 to light that fuse. I firmly believe that both Clinton and GW had their hands tied untill 9/11 happened. Then it was game on.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top