Devil505
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2009
- Messages
- 3,512
- Reaction score
- 315
- Location
- Masschusetts
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
As for perjury, he was found in contempt of court for lying under oath.
Stop with the strawman. He lied to a federal judge, that's contempt of court. He lost his law license. Any more questions?Sorry....Wrong on both counts. Show me a link to Clinton being convicted of perjury & show me a law that says that receiving oral sex...... between consenting adults.....violates any law.
Additionally your comments about Obama lying are pure partisan BS.
Clinton may have been accused of perjury, but an accusation is meaningless unless it's followed by conviction in court. ..You know....Like Scooter Libby was convicted of perjury in a court of law.
Any more questions?
Was he convicted of perjury?
Just one:
Was he convicted of perjury? (....like Scooter Libby was)
He committed perjury but was not convicted. We rarely hold politicians accountable for their actions.
Don't fall for Devil's word games, Clinton lied his ass off and everyone knows it. And not just about a blowjob, but his entire presidency. He's a liar, period.No, he was not charged and convicted by a jury. He was, however, found by a court to be lying under oath, so yes, he did commit the offense.
Don't fall for Devil's word games, Clinton lied his ass off and everyone knows it. And not just about a blowjob, but his entire presidency. He's a liar, period.
He committed perjury but was not convicted. We rarely hold politicians accountable for their actions.
When did he committ perjury?
Believe me, I don't "fall" for anything Devil does. Which will include his inevitable, unsupported retort that I have, many times, without knowing it.
No, he's not.
Now, it's true that Clinton DID once try to make the argument that he was "active duty military" in order to avoid something (don't remember exactly what), but that went nowhere. The President is a civilian, and civilian control of the military is exactly the point.
As for perjury, he was found in contempt of court for lying under oath.
One question:Of course it wasn't... but the democrats were desperate for any kind of a win, so they latched on to this colossal waste of time.
.
Did you find the mutli-million dollar impeachment proceedings against President Bill Clinton a "colossal waste of time"..... & money, or was that different because he was a Democrat?
Ask the judge who found him in contempt for lying under oath. (Strange; I think this was said already.)
Which proves my point.
Even if I were to totally concede that Clinton's adultery was not illegal, Clinton was still found guilty of braking a law whereas Wilson broke NO law.
So, to answer the question:
Impeachment proceedings against President Bill Clinton were not a "colossal waste of time" because Clinton was found guilty of braking a law.
Wilson did not brake any law.
Since Wilson did not brake any law, his deceleration is covered under free speech and therefore Congress admonishing him is not only a "colossal waste of time" but an affront to the Constitution and an insult to greater American public.
Obama WAS lying, and lying to the public IS illegal, so impeach the bastard.
Didn't know Clinton was driving his automobile against the law.
The lie came about because of a perjury trap by the prosecution.
Also Obama wasn't lying...
So when Bush lied...
Who the **** is taking about Clinton driving a car? I mean seriously wtf are you smoking
But the lie DID come about, and was illegal, which was my point.
Yes he was, this has been proven since Wilson's outburst.
This thread is not about Bush. Nothing Bush said or did justifies Obama lying to the public anyway.
You were talking about Clinton "braking" the law :rofl
Umm no he wasn't...
It just shows your disingenuous standard of what you think constitutes an impeachable offense.
I don't get it....Firefox isn't flagging "braking" as a misspelled word, so idk wtf you're talking about
Umm yes he was.
No it shows your ignorance on my opinion of Bush. I didn't even vote for the guy so I'm not ever going to answer for anything he did.
No the word isn't misspelled you used the wrong word.
No he wasn't.
Well so far you've said two democratic presidents deserved impeachment but the republican? No comment. You said lying to the public is impeachable but you have no comment on Bush. It's disingenuous of you
What's wrong you couldn't take a joke?rof This thread is not about correct grammar (if it were then you would have included the final period at the end of your post).
You could claim this until the cows come home it still won't change the fact you're wrong. How exactly was his statement a lie?Yes he was.
There was never any requirement for me to comment on every president whenever I comment on a few.
Generally speaking, I'm likely to refrain from commenting on Bush because you people keep bringing up Bush every time Obama is criticized. I'm not a Republican and I'm tired of hearing about Bush when we want to discuss the sitting president.
It may seem disingenuous to you, but I know my motives and don't seek validation from others for those motives. I'm tired of Bush being brought up every-time there's a discussion of Obama. You don't have to believe that, but that's all it is regardless.
You jumped from Clinton to Obama but skipped an entire presidency that lied to the public. Seems like you only apply certain standards to certain presidents.
I was directly answering a specific question.
The question I was answering did not include Bush, so it follows that my answer would not include Bush, either.
So going back to the question should President Bush been impeached for lying to the public?
Moderator's Warning: |
Perjury and lying under oath are not the same thing. Do you know what the three conditions of perjury are?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?