Here we go again, another Clinton double standard

[Iriemon]

I would rather spend the money on prosecuting crooked Clinton cronnies then on earmarks for a woodstock memorial in upper New York..........

How many crooked Clinton cronnies were actually convicted as a result of Starr's investigation?

Then we can compare that withe how many crooked Reagan cronies were convicted and how many crook Bush cronies were convicted.

 

[Iriemon]

Please tell us.....and post sites to back it up.

Thanks :2wave:

And we're still waiting for anything on this one:

Originally Posted by Navy Pride
Yeah he is a convicted felon...........

 

[mpg]

I do say so.

But don't rely on me, MPG. You asserted Clinton was convicted of perjury. Given the millions of articles on Clinton in the internet, it should be very easy for you to find a number of reliable sources to back up your assertion, and show everyone I'm wrong and you are right.

Please do.

I never said he was convicted. Isn't that what they call a "straw man"?

 

[Navy Pride]

Please tell us.....and post sites to back it up.

Thanks :2wave:

I don't have to we both know already........

 

[Navy Pride]

How many crooked Clinton cronnies were actually convicted as a result of Starr's investigation?

Then we can compare that withe how many crooked Reagan cronies were convicted and how many crook Bush cronies were convicted.

A bunch from McDougal to that crooked goveernor........

 

[Hatuey]

Not very good. You are still not saying the dynamic duo are innocent. You know they aren't innocent, they simply avoided being caught. They got away with it...so far.

You do know that under our legal system if you aren't proven guilty by default you are innocent....This isn't Saudi Arabia...

"Innocent until proven guilty".

 

[Sir Loin]

How many crooked Clinton cronnies were actually convicted as a result of Starr's investigation?

Then we can compare that withe how many crooked Reagan cronies were convicted and how many crook Bush cronies were convicted.

How many crooked Clinton cronnies were actually convicted as a result of Starr's investigation?

Then we can compare that withe how many crooked Reagan cronies were convicted and how many crook Bush cronies were convicted.

It has been more than a few years since I've seen that particular question asked, but just of hand out from memory I believe there were right at 14 convictions that resulted from the investigations Ken Starr was appointed to lead. The total number of convictions in the Clinton administration tops out at 47.

There were right at 14 convictions of people that resulted from the Iran Contra investigations. Two of them were overturened.

I am unaware of any convictions related to Bush Sr or Bush Jr.

And it has been a while, but just out of hand and from memory Bill Clinton entered into a plea agreement. He pleaded guilty to perjury and lost his law license in Arkansas for a period of five years. As of this date he has not sought to have his license to practice law in Arkansas reinstated. Which he has the right via the same agreement to do.

 

[aps]

Oh damn. I am so hurt. Your comments just cut me to the quick. :roll:

You poor thing. I actually feel sorry for you.

 

[TOJ]

You poor thing. I actually feel sorry for you.

Well thank you very much. I appreciate your concern. I'm sure it is from the heart. :unsure13:

 

[Iriemon]

...

And it has been a while, but just out of hand and from memory Bill Clinton entered into a plea agreement. He pleaded guilty to perjury and lost his law license in Arkansas for a period of five years. As of this date he has not sought to have his license to practice law in Arkansas reinstated. Which he has the right via the same agreement to do.

I'd have to ask you to provide a source on that one. Clinton was never charged with crime, and did not plead guitly to a crime. He did enter an agreement with prosecutors in which they agreed to drop the case and Clinton agreed to his law license being suspended. But given the tens of millions the Govt was spending and the cost to Clinton personally to pay his lawyers, seems like a pretty good (or necessary) deal from his perspective.

 

[Iriemon]

I never said he was convicted. Isn't that what they call a "straw man"?

That is a fair criticism. You wrote that "Perjury was proven."

It the typical use of the phrase, saying it was proved that someone committed a crime is usually in the context that there was evidence put on by the Govt of the crime in a jury trial that resulted in the jury finding that the Govt proved the defendant did the crime with a guilty verdict. I made that connection in my mind.

Your statement: "Perjury was proven" sounded to me like an assertion of fact; that there was some official finding in this regard. If that is the case, then I'm still waiting for you to post a link to a reliable site showing that Clinton was proven to have committed the crime of perjury.

If on the other hand, you were just stating your opinion, then you are certainly entitled to it. Adding "IMO" would avoid misunderstandings in the future.

 

[Iriemon]

It has been more than a few years since I've seen that particular question asked, but just of hand out from memory I believe there were right at 14 convictions that resulted from the investigations Ken Starr was appointed to lead. The total number of convictions in the Clinton administration tops out at 47.

There were right at 14 convictions of people that resulted from the Iran Contra investigations. Two of them were overturened.

I am unaware of any convictions related to Bush Sr or Bush Jr. [/quote]

I did a little googling, and was able to find a Wiki article listing Reagan administration persons who were convicted for crimes relating to administration policies (eg Iran-contra).

Reagan administration convictions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, I was unable to find a reliable source that supports your assertion that 47 Clinton administration officials were convicted. Do you have a site as to who those folks were and for what they were convicted?

 

[Sir Loin]

I'd have to ask you to provide a source on that one. Clinton was never charged with crime, and did not plead guitly to a crime. He did enter an agreement with prosecutors in which they agreed to drop the case and Clinton agreed to his law license being suspended. But given the tens of millions the Govt was spending and the cost to Clinton personally to pay his lawyers, seems like a pretty good (or necessary) deal from his perspective.

Judge Susan Webber Right found Clinton in civil contempt for “willing failure” to provide truthful testimony. She referred the case to the Arkansas Supreme Court for further review and disciplinary action. Upon learning that the Arkansas court was going to indicte him and seek felony prosecution, Clinton entered into his plea arrangement.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/04/12/clinton.contempt/

In addition to his plea bargain admitting giving false information, AKA perjury, Clinton also agreed to pay $25,000 to the state bar of Arkansas in addition to being disbarred. Clinton paid Paula Jones $850,000 in settlement. Clinton paid $90,000 to the court as fine for violating its orders to comply honestly. Furthermore Clinton was able to wring out of the deal the promise federal prosecutors would also not purse further perjury charges against him in any Whitewater prosecutions. Yes, it was a good arrangement for him. The kind that any regular citizen would never have been able to procure. It amounted to a hand slap.
http://news.lp.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/clinton/icreport/intro030602icrpt1.pdf

I did a little googling, and was able to find a Wiki article listing Reagan administration persons who were convicted for crimes relating to administration policies (eg Iran-contra).

However, I was unable to find a reliable source that supports your assertion that 47 Clinton administration officials were convicted. Do you have a site as to who those folks were and for what they were convicted?

I learned the number was 47 when I sat for my Paralegal license. You might have to actually crack a real bona fide book for the info. But I did find this information online at The Progressive Review. They list conviction numbers for Clinton and Reagan. The information is repeated at numerous websites and blogs from across the political spectrum. They all however, are referencing from The Progressive Review:
http://prorev.com/wwindex.htm

-Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47
- Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33
- Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
- Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122

 

[Thorgasm]

This is another reason to not vote for Clinton. Do we really want to rehash these issues for another 4-8 years? I guarantee that conservatives won't let it go.

 

[Sir Loin]

This is another reason to not vote for Clinton. Do we really want to rehash these issues for another 4-8 years? I guarantee that conservatives won't let it go.

No, rehashing these issues now is the height of stupidty IMO.

 

[Thorgasm]

No, rehashing these issues now is the height of stupidty IMO.

Then why are you rehashing it? :doh

 

[TOJ]

This is another reason to not vote for Clinton. Do we really want to rehash these issues for another 4-8 years? I guarantee that conservatives won't let it go.

Why not? It would be great entertainment.

 

[Thorgasm]

Why not? It would be great entertainment.

What a patriotic and important thing to say in these serious times. :roll:

May I suggest you get cable or satellite TV? Or how about a Rubik's cube if you are bored? :mrgreen:

 

[Iriemon]

Originally Posted by Sir Loin. ...
He pleaded guilty to perjury
...

Judge Susan Webber Right found Clinton in civil contempt for “willing failure” to provide truthful testimony. She referred the case to the Arkansas Supreme Court for further review and disciplinary action. Upon learning that the Arkansas court was going to indicte him and seek felony prosecution, Clinton entered into his plea arrangement.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/04/12/clinton.contempt/

Would you agree that is not pleading guilty to perjury?

In addition to his plea bargain admitting giving false information, AKA perjury, Clinton also agreed to pay $25,000 to the state bar of Arkansas in addition to being disbarred. Clinton paid Paula Jones $850,000 in settlement. Clinton paid $90,000 to the court as fine for violating its orders to comply honestly. Furthermore Clinton was able to wring out of the deal the promise federal prosecutors would also not purse further perjury charges against him in any Whitewater prosecutions. Yes, it was a good arrangement for him. The kind that any regular citizen would never have been able to procure. It amounted to a hand slap.
http://news.lp.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/clinton/icreport/intro030602icrpt1.pdf

Would you agree that is not pleading guilty to perjury?

I agree the deal was, at most, a hand slap. Clinton was never going to be a private lawyer anyway. IMO it shows that the prosecutor knew he had a weak case that he never brought charges and dropped them for a hand slap.

I learned the number was 47 when I sat for my Paralegal license. You might have to actually crack a real bona fide book for the info. But I did find this information online at The Progressive Review. They list conviction numbers for Clinton and Reagan. The information is repeated at numerous websites and blogs from across the political spectrum. They all however, are referencing from The Progressive Review:
http://prorev.com/wwindex.htm

-Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47
- Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33
- Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
- Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122

Thanks. I didn't see anything on that page indicating 47 Clinton administrative officials had been indicted and what for.

But that is why I asked for a reliable source, not just any internet site. If we want to cite to any internet site here is one that says something totally different:

Clinton administration officials indicted and/or convicted in connection with Whitewater:

0

Clinton administration officials indicted and/or convicted in connection with Travel Office allegations:

0

Clinton administration officials indicted and/or convicted in connection with alleged abuse of FBI files:

0

Clinton administration officials indicted and/of convicted in connection with Lewinsky matter:

0

Clinton administration officials indicted and/or convicted in connection with the Independent Counsel
investigation of Interior Secretary Bruce Babbit:

0

Clinton administration officials indicted and/or convicted in connection with the Independent Counsel
investigation of Labor Secretary Alexis Herman:

0

Clinton administration officials indicted and/or convicted in connection with the Independent Counsel
investigation of Americorps director Eli Siegal:

0

Clinton administration officials indicted and/or convicted in connection with the
Independent Counsel investigation of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown:

0 (Investigation abandoned upon Brown’s death in nation’s service)

Clinton Administration officials convicted in connection with the Independent Counsel investigation of
Agriculture Secretary Michael Espy:

0 (Espy acquitted of all charges. Judge sharply rebukes Independent Counsel Donald Smaltz for
bringing case in the first place.)

Other:

HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for misstating to the F.B.I.
the amount of money he gave his girlfriend;

Assistant Attorney-General Webster Hubbell convicted of embezzling funds from Rose Law Firm
before his federal appointment; that is, stealing from his law partners, including Hillary Rodham Clinton;

Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker, a political rival of Bill Clinton’s, convicted on charges involving
local television licensing, and nothing at all to do with Clinton;

Jim and Susan McDougal, convicted of crimes in Whitewater matter. In summation to the court,
Independent Counsel declares that President Clinton is innocent of wrongdoing.
convictions

 

[Thorgasm]

Iriemon, this is boring. We have seen this argument before. It won't bear any new fruit. The denial is more damning than the accusation.

How about you defend the pardons the Rodham brothers bought? :mrgreen:

 

[Iriemon]

This is another reason to not vote for Clinton. Do we really want to rehash these issues for another 4-8 years? I guarantee that conservatives won't let it go.

On what basis would you suppose that the right wing attack machine won't fabricate stuff about Obama just as readily? We've already heard the BS about how he is secretly a Muslim etc.

At least with Clintons, we know that the $70 million was spent investigating them and that no crime against them was ever proven and they were never convicted of any crime.

I know that won't stop the right wing attack machine from rehashing it over again. Hell, here in just this thread so far we have had three folks falsely claiming that Bill Clinton was convicted of a crime or proved to have committed perjury!

 

[Iriemon]

Iriemon, this is boring. We have seen this argument before. It won't bear any new fruit. The denial is more damning than the accusation.

How about you defend the pardons the Rodham brothers bought? :mrgreen:

I hear you. How many threads have we had over the past couple years where people have claimed that Clinton was convicted of perjury only to be proved utterly wrong. And I'm pretty sure that Navy Pride was making that false assertion in at least a couple of those threads.

But here we are, same false assertions being made again.

You'd think people could get the facts straight. I've wondered before how can so many people falsely believe Clinton was convicted of a crime? I'm guessing Rush and other right wing outlets say it, and folks that listen to those shows just lap it up.

 

[Thorgasm]

On what basis would you suppose that the right wing attack machine won't fabricate stuff about Obama just as readily? We've already heard the BS about how he is secretly a Muslim etc.

At least with Clintons, we know that the $70 million was spent investigating them and that no crime against them was ever proven and they were never convicted of any crime.

I know that won't stop the right wing attack machine from rehashing it over again. Hell, here in just this thread so far we have had three folks falsely claiming that Bill Clinton was convicted of a crime or proved to have committed perjury!

As long as people are picking at old wounds, this country can't heal, or move forward. You are arguing a legal technicality. OJ wasn't convicted either. We all know what happened though. The Clintons aren't saints, convictions or not, everyone knows this. This argument is a reminder of that. It surely doesn't help your candidate.

 

[Iriemon]

As long as people are picking at old wounds, this country can't heal, or move forward. You are arguing a legal technicality. OJ wasn't convicted either. We all know what happened though. The Clintons aren't saints, convictions or not, everyone knows this. This argument is a reminder of that. It surely doesn't help your candidate.

IMO, it is kind of a big "technicality" over whether someone was charged with and convicted of a crime or not.

But your point is I'm being unreasonable challenging flat out false statements of fact?

 

[Thorgasm]

IMO, it is kind of a big "technicality" over whether someone was charged with and convicted of a crime or not.

But your point is I'm being unreasonable challenging flat out false statements of fact?

Listen, I liked Bill Clinton. I also realize that he did lie. It was understandable why he lied. I am not mad about it. But his defense was arguing the definition of the word "is" (to be). The fact that he got away with it doesn't make the situation any better as far as I see it. Just like OJ. I also still wouldn't let Michael Jackson watch my kids even though he wasn't convicted. Do you understand the point that I am making?