Clintion good or bad?

[Stinger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
You've certainly tried to make the case by posting the definitions and then stating that not all lying is perjury, else what was your point. We all are fully aware of what perjury is and isn't.

Obviously you were not, since you didn't know the definition.

:rofl that's something you certain haven't demonstrated but I note you keep dodging. Do you really think the baseless statements you make makeup for the fact you really don't know anything about the Clinton/Jones case?

I have asked you directly to explain why Clintons testimony and especially his submitting a false affidavit did not consitution perjury by using your own defition which you posted.

You don't need to keep posting and defending your position by repeating that "well not every lie is perjury so there" arguements.

I have posted to you from one of the most respect legal authorities in the country who agrees with my position, your baseless assertions do not, repeat do not refute his legal opinion in this matter. His AUTHORITATIVE legal opinion. And what judges do, they give legal opinions.

Quote:
Then don't come here and debate it then.

I never did. Why are you arguing about it.

Yea you jumped in and starting debating, more like arguing, about matters you have admitted you don't enough about to have an opinion.


Quote:
We are all fully aware of what the statues are and what they require, if you have a point to make then make. If you content Clinton's testimony did not meet those requirements then elaborate, they us how you came to that conclusion.

I've never made that contention. Why are you arguing about it?

Great so now we know you don't disagree that Clintons testimony consitituted perjury by your own defintition.

Else what are you arguing?

Show me where she says that what he did is a crime and I'll agree. Simple as that.
If you can't you are being obstinate and wasting our time.

She made a finding of fact that he lied under oath for the purpose of obstructing justice. That is a crime. If not, explain why not.



My Quote:
It has some bearing on whether the acts he committed were crimes. If there was clear evidence he committed a crime I would expect the prosecutor to charge him with a crime, especially after spending $70 million dollars.

Your turn, post a cite that the Lewinsky matter cost $70 million dollars.
"The end of the $73 million witch hunt"

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/col/cona/2002/03/22/whitewater/index.html

I'm sorry I've had enough of you uninformed nonsense. Your previous factually inaccurate statements were bad enough, this cite is about WHITEWATER not the Jones case. You admit you don't know the facts, you admit you can't come to an opinion. And then you post this type of nonsense, you don't even read your own cites.



http://dir.salon.com/story/news/col/cona/2002/03/22/whitewater/index.html

 

[Iriemon]

Iriemon:
Show me where she says that what he did is a crime and I'll agree. Simple as that. If you can't you are being obstinate and wasting our time.

Please quote her were she says I am finding Clinton engaged in a criminal act. Then you can quit wasting our time. Otherwise you are being obstinate.

Show us where Clinton basically plead guilty to a crime.

LOL. Show me the quote where Judge Wright (or anyone) said she was finding Clinton guilty of committing a crime for submitting the Lewinsky affidavit and I'll discuss my contention. If you can't show the quote of her saying that, you are just being obstinate.

:rofl that's something you certain haven't demonstrated but I note you keep dodging. ...

I asked you four times for quotes to back up your statements and claims. You responded nothing but your own blather and then claim I'm dodging. Funny.

You can't back up your assertions. End of story. Now you're just playing games.

 

[Iriemon]

THIS is TOO Funny:

The only thing I have contended is that Judge Wright (or anyone else) did not find Clinton guilty of committing a crime.

If you can give us a quote where she says that she if finding him guilty of a crime I'll look at it and respond. Otherwise nothing that you wrote is relavent to my contention.

 

[easyt65]

I have never stated Clinton did not committ perjury or obstruct justice. I'm not that interested in it. I did look at the judge's order, and I agree it sounds like he did.

You said it - you have NEVER come right out and declared Clinton did not commit perjury or obstruct justice, but you sure as HE!! follow up by making every argument, every weasled excuse, and 'Definition of 'IS' argument to say that he didn't based on the sole fact that he was never charged, tried, and found guilty of such a crime -- IE, The GOLDEN LOOPHOLE!

That authority gave an opinion as to whether Clinton committed a crime. (Actually, the Judge found him GUILTY/In violation of contempt of Courtfor lying under oath/failing to disclose information) That is nothing I have ever opined on. That authority did not refute my contetion, which was the Clinton was not found guilty of committing a crime. (Can you say 'Golden Loophole')?

:rofl

She was making a finding about whether he violated her discovery order. You are trying to take that finding and morph it into a finding that Clinton committed a crime. They are simply not the same. Judge Wright did not have to find that Clinton violated a criminal statute to determine he violated her discovery order. She made a finding based on civil contempt. Clinton was not charged with a crime (Golden Loophole -- although he was found guilty of failure to disclose information via perjury and witness tampering) in Judge Wright's court. He was never officially charged with any crimein any court "(Golden Loophole ). He never put on a defense.....You or anyone else can opine that Clinton committed a crime. But that is not what Judge Wright found, and to say she did is just not correct.

No one is saying Judge Wright found him officially guilty of the crime of Perjury and witness tampering - we all just acknowledge the fact that he COMMITTED the crime/Committed the act! Had we had a prosecutor willing to drag this country through the gutter a little longer, since Clinton had already drug the country into the gutter to begin with due to his behavior as a sexual predator, we could have avoided this whole conversation as the Golden Loophole would have been avoided, Slick Willey being officially tried and convicted of the crime. Judge Wright already pointed out/acknowledged that he had done it, but her job was to focus on the trial at hand, not to start a new trial. Whether the Prosecutor's office wanted to follow up and charge Clinton with the crime and call for a new/different trial was not her job/concern.

It has some bearing on whether the acts he committed were crimes.

"He MAy have.....it SOUNDS like he did....."

Oh for Pete's sakes! By the very definition of the word perjury, it has already been proven that he is GUILTY - DID in fact commit the felonious ACT of perjury and DID in fact commit the felonious ACT of witness tampering, yet you pathetically continue to cling to this unbelievably routine of refusing to acknowledge the fact that he did these things, holding on with a death grip to the Golden Loophole, the argument that Bill Clinton was Never officially Charged with the crime of Perjury, therefore "he did not do it, was not a perjurer, wasn't guilty of the acts, won't say it....ain't gonna do it!"

It is amazing that the rabid left wing liberals who cling to this strategy, who claim Clinton did not break the law and did not commit treason by selling missile technology to China because he was never convicted for any of his crimes, are just as rabid in their accusations that President Bush is guilty of so many things, none of which he has been charged with, tried for, or found guilty of. In Bush's case, you declare bush is an inept President and demand he be punished and Impeached for the things you accuse him of, demonstrating he does not need to be charged or tried for anything while defending Clinton as innocent because he was never officially charged or tried for any thing! Oh that hypocritical double standard you like to whip out!

Sorta like your argument about sticking beside allies in WW2 but how we should abandon allies today! just make up the friggin' rules as you go along! :rofl

Well, enough time has been spent on what YOU, Bill-O, & jfuh think! Who cares! As proven above your hypocrisy, doube-standards, denial, and making sh!t up as you go based on the Party-1st mentality will continue - you will never be able to admit the Democratic Party's glorious leader was a criminal, traitor, and an embarrassment to this country, and that he failed to protect this nation from the terrorists who declared war on us and then began carrying out attacks against us during his administration.

Let the defensive, delusional rebuttal/diatribe begin....but I'm switching channels!

 

[Caine]

his behavior as a sexual predator,

Sexual Predator?????
What, because he was getting some and you werent?

What, because he was getting some and women later thought, "Hm.. Maybe I could get him to pay me some "keep quiet" money."

 

[Captain America]

I think this whole debate was spurrned when somebody mentioned (perhaps me?) that the rightwing apologists are quick to defend the like of DeLay, Gingrich, (or Bill O'Reilly for that matter :mrgreen: ) or anyone else from their camp, when they always proclaim, "He hasn't been found guilty" of this or that.

I see the left using the same argument in regards to Clinton.

If we are to believe that we are all innocent until found guilty, then this argument favors both sides of the coin.

 

[Caine]

If we are to believe that we are all innocent until found guilty, then this argument favors both sides of the coin.

Yes, its the same nutjobs who take thier "fake patriotism "image"" so far as to claim that its bashing the troops to report on arrests of soldiers for rape/mudering civilians in Iraq because they are innocent until proven guilty, who claim that Clinton is a convicted criminal. Even though history proves them to be entirely wrong. That, or maybe that are just complete ****ing idiots.

 

[Iriemon]

I think this whole debate was spurrned when somebody mentioned (perhaps me?) that the rightwing apologists are quick to defend the like of DeLay, Gingrich, (or Bill O'Reilly for that matter :mrgreen: ) or anyone else from their camp, when they always proclaim, "He hasn't been found guilty" of this or that.

I see the left using the same argument in regards to Clinton.

If we are to believe that we are all innocent until found guilty, then this argument favors both sides of the coin.

I'm not sure if it is I am not communicating clearly, they just do not or cannot undertstand, or are being obstinate and playing games.

I've never contensted their opinions that Clinton committed crimes. I've just said Judge Wright did not find that, which is true. Seems pretty simple to understand to me.

 

[Caine]

I'm not sure if it is I am not communicating clearly, they just do not or cannot undertstand, or are being obstinate and playing games.

I've never contensted their opinions that Clinton committed crimes. I've just said Judge Wright did not find that, which is true. Seems pretty simple to understand to me.

No! Your wrong!

He is a convicted felon. (NavyPride, ProudAmerican, Stinger, easyt65, aquapub, dsanthony, etc, etc, etc)

 

[Iriemon]

No one is saying Judge Wright found him officially guilty of the crime of Perjury and witness tampering

Thank you for admitting what I have been saying all along.

Originally Posted by Iriemon
That authority gave an opinion as to whether Clinton committed a crime. (Actually, the Judge found him GUILTY/In violation of contempt of Courtfor lying under oath/failing to disclose information) That is nothing I have ever opined on. That authority did not refute my contetion, which was the Clinton was not found guilty of committing a crime. (Can you say 'Golden Loophole')?

:rofl

For the record, this is not my post but contains comments by Easyt65.

You said it - you have NEVER come right out and declared Clinton did not commit perjury or obstruct justice, but you sure as HE!! follow up by making every argument, every weasled excuse, and 'Definition of 'IS' argument to say that he didn't based on the sole fact that he was never charged, tried, and found guilty of such a crime -- IE, The GOLDEN LOOPHOLE!

Now you are resorting to lying about what I said again.

Show us where I ever said Clinton didn't commit a crime and then I will discuss what I said with you. Otherwise I'm not wasting my time debating with someone who lies about what I said and then argues about it.

 

[Iriemon]

Sorta like your argument about sticking beside allies in WW2 but how we should abandon allies today! just make up the friggin' rules as you go along! :rofl

More lies. I never said anything like that.

I notice you put the little laughing symbol usually right after lying. Funny little game to you, huh?

I will not debate with someone who lies about what I said.

 

[easyt65]

More lies. I never said anything like that.

I notice you put the little laughing symbol usually right after lying. Funny little game to you, huh?

I will not debate with someone who lies about what I said.

BS! YOU said we did not come to France's aid - calling France a 'staunch ally of the U.S. - fast enough during WW2 but then later said Israel's fight against the same Islamic Extremists who have declared war on us is none of our business and that we should stay out of it!

You will not debate anyone who keeps using your ownwords against you is more like it!

The laughing symbol is because I think your delusion, denial, and getting upset at anyone who uses your own words against you is very funny!

Funny, like out of everything I wrote in my last post, the only thing you took exception to (therefore disagreed with) was the 'slight' against your pals the French.

Sorry to offend you, Senator Kerry, by reminding you/everyone what you had said!

 

[Iriemon]

First Easy statement:

Sorta like your argument about sticking beside allies in WW2 but how we should abandon allies today!

Revised Easy statement:

BS! YOU said we did not come to France's aid - calling France a 'staunch ally of the U.S. - fast enough during WW2 but then later said Israel's fight against the same Islamic Extremists who have declared war on us is none of our business and that we should stay out of it!

That is a little more accurate description of what I said, though still not accurate.

I said we did not come to France's aid when it was overrun by Germany in 1940. That is true.

I said France was one of our oldest and staunches allies, which IMO is true, their troops found and died beside US troops in the Revolutionary war, WWI, WWII, Lebanon, Iraq, Bosnia, and Afganistan (where they still have troops stationed) and perhaps others.

I said our policy toward the Israel-Palesitinian issue should be neutral. And I said that Israel's problems with its neighbors are not America's problems. And I said that if Israel is unjustifiably attacked and her existance was threatened, I would support US intervention in her behalf.

I never said it was "none of our business" those are your words. And I never said we should "abandon" Israel or any other ally. IMO what I said is not abandoning Israel. That is your word and your opinion, I'd guess based on your apparent "Israel before the US" attitude you'd consider anything less than full partnership with Israel to be abandoning her. But that is your opinion, not what *I* said, and to claim I said that about Israel is a flat-out lie.

This is what you constantly do -- you take your opinions and claim that was what I stated.

not debate anyone who keeps using your ownwords against you is more like it!

Record now clarified.

The laughing symbol is because I think your delusion, denial, and getting upset at anyone who uses your own words against you is very funny!

I guess you do. However, you didn't think it was very funny when I gave you a taste of your own medicine and turned the tables around and (intentionally) misquoted you, I noticed.

Sorry to offend you, Senator Kerry, by reminding you/everyone what you had said!

And just like with Senator Kerry you do it by lying about and distorting what he said.

Why should I expect any difference, eh?

But I will not let you distort my statements on the record.

For the record another lie you stated about me:

In Bush's case, you declare bush is an inept President and demand he be punished and Impeached for the things you accuse him of, demonstrating he does not need to be charged

I have declared that I think Bush is inept. That is my opinion.

However claiming that I have demanded he be punished and impeached is another lie.

 

[easyt65]

Nice try Iriemon - you said we did not come to France's aid fast enough, calling the President's weighing of the cost of our involvement 'sitting on our hands'. You followed up later saying that israel's perdicament, fighting the iranian-sponsored islamic Extremists who have also declared war on us was none of our business!

Man, you can't even accept responsibility for your own words let alone accept the fact clinton committed perjury! :roll: :rofl

 

[Stinger]

I asked you four times for quotes to back up your statements and claims.

I have and you have clearly shown you don't know the facts about this and have posted misinformation throughout even posting and article about Whitewater claiming it supported your bogus claim that the Lewnisky investigation cost $73 million.

 

[Stinger]

The only thing I have contended is that Judge Wright (or anyone else) did not find Clinton guilty of committing a crime.

If you can give us a quote where she says that she if finding him guilty of a crime I'll look at it and respond. Otherwise nothing that you wrote is relavent to my contention.

In your own cite she says he obstructed justice by lwillfully lying under oath, that is a crime and she fined him heavily for it and then wrote to the Arkansas Bar to have his lisence to practice law suspended. I have asked you repeatedly why you think his submission of a false affidavit was not a crime or why his obstruction of justice was not a crime. You have refused to answer.

 

[Caine]

Man, you can't even accept responsibility for your own words let alone accept the fact clinton committed perjury! :roll: :rofl

I'll remember this for the next time you say the words.. "Innocent until proven guilty"

 

[easyt65]

Nice try Iriemon - you said we did not come to France's aid fast enough, calling the President's weighing of the cost of our involvement 'sitting on our hands'. You followed up later saying that israel's perdicament, fighting the iranian-sponsored islamic Extremists who have also declared war on us was none of our business!

Man, you can't even accept responsibility for your own words let alone accept the fact clinton committed perjury! :roll: :rofl

"IMO our policy toward the Israel-Palesitinian issue should be neutral."

"France, which had fought a horrific world war just 20 years earlier, had the guts to stand up to Germany in 1939 while America sat on her hands."
-- It was the United States that basically sat on its hands.

Easy: Lets take a step back for a second. You bash the U.S. for sitting back and minding our own business instead of stepping up and attacking Germany, who had done nothing to us; however, you say that is exactly what the U.S. should be doing now!

Iriemon: I did no such thing. I challenged your assertions about France in WWII and compared them to the US's action in the same situation.
-- IMO our policy toward the Israel-Palesitinian issue should be neutral

blah, blah, blah, blah:rofl

 

[Stinger]

I'll remember this for the next time you say the words.. "Innocent until proven guilty"

Clinton admitted it and a Judge made a finding of fact and the Arkansa Bar Association and the SCOTUS fount it too.

What wasn't proven about Clinton's guilt?

 

[Iriemon]

Nice try Iriemon - you said we did not come to France's aid fast enough, calling the President's weighing of the cost of our involvement 'sitting on our hands'. You followed up later saying that israel's perdicament, fighting the iranian-sponsored islamic Extremists who have also declared war on us was none of our business!

OK, put your money where your mouth is.

Last time I asked you simply show the quote you claimed I said you cut-n-ran like the coward you are. Let's see if you've changed and now have a shred of honor:

Show the board where I ever said: "Israel's predicament is none of our business" as you claimed I said.

Show the board where I ever said we should "abandon" Israel as you claimed I said.

Show the board where I ever said we Bush should be impeached as you claimed I said.

Man, you can't even accept responsibility for your own words let alone accept the fact clinton committed perjury! :roll: :rofl

No sir, you are a liar and a coward who misrepresents what people say and then will not back up your claim or admit your mistake. I call you out to do that now, or I continue to call you a liar and coward.

By the way, you never responded to this post about another one of your lies:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/390149-post89.html

 

[easyt65]

I'll remember this for the next time you say the words.. "Innocent until proven guilty"

Dude, I quoted the definition of 'perjury'.
The judge cited him for contempt for failure to disclose pertinent information to the case before her through his false testimony (perjury, as per the definition) and witness tampering.
-- The judge was involved in a current case. All the power she had was to cite Clinton with contempt because she had to try the existing case. she did not have the option to stop the current trial to have a Clinton charged and tried on the 2 felony counts, which he committed and for which he could have been tried! That was for the prosecutors to do, should they choose to do so. A judge does NOT issue arrests warrans, indict people, etc. the only avenue she had to punish Clinton for his Perjury and Witness Tampering was to cite him for Contempt. She did find him guilty of these things, which is why she cted him for contempt!

He WAS FOUND GUILTY of DISOBEYING HER DISCLOSURE ORDER through willful perjury and witness tampering!

STOP already with the 'poor, innocent hounded Slick Willey cr@p'! :roll:

 

[Iriemon]

In your own cite she says he obstructed justice by lwillfully lying under oath, that is a crime and she fined him heavily for it and then wrote to the Arkansas Bar to have his lisence to practice law suspended. I have asked you repeatedly why you think his submission of a false affidavit was not a crime or why his obstruction of justice was not a crime. You have refused to answer.

Wsaterful repetition.

Give the judge's quotes as I requrested and I'll discuss it.

 

[Iriemon]

Clinton admitted it and a Judge made a finding of fact and the Arkansa Bar Association and the SCOTUS fount it too.

What wasn't proven about Clinton's guilt?

The fact that he was ever found guilty of a crime by anyone or admitted he was guilty of a crime to anyone.

 

[Caine]

Easy: Lets take a step back for a second. You bash the U.S. for sitting back and minding our own business instead of stepping up and attacking Germany, who had done nothing to us; however, you say that is exactly what the U.S. should be doing now!

Were you not aware of the American transatlantic ships that were sunk by the German U boats before we got involved in the war?

If something like that happened today... We would be dropping bombs on any country who looked at us wrong.

 

[easyt65]

OK, put your money where your mouth is.

Show the board where I ever said: "Israel's predicament is none of our business" as you claimed I said.

Show the board where I ever said we should "abandon" Israel as you claimed I said.

"IMO our policy toward the Israel-Palesitinian issue should be neutral." (Nuetral - ie, stay out of it, do not help, assist, intervene, allow them to sink or swim on their own!!!

Show the board where I ever said we Bush should be impeached as you claimed I said.
WHERE the F#@& did THAT come from?! I never said you said that.....I challenge you, ya little spin-master, to show me where I said YOU said/thought that!



No sir, you are a liar and a coward who misrepresents what people say and then will not back up your claim and admit your mistake. I call you out to do that now, or I continue to call you a liar and coward.


YOU, sir, have just been proven to be a LIAR, a spin-master :spin: , and unable to assume responsibility for your OWN WORDS. Want more of 'em? check out the other quotes I re-posted a few posts up...AGAIN! I just DID post what you wanted...and you know what? everyone is going to continue to watch you deny, spin, call me a coward, attack me personally, and try to draw any attention to what i have proven - what you have said ANYWAY....so it doesn't matter, Iriemon! You're gonna do what you do, no matter what! :rofl

So go on and keep spinning, denying, diverting attention, and calling me whatever you want, 'Mon! Don't mean a thing cause it doesn't change the truth that people can see with their own eyes! Ciao!:2wave: