What is really criminal is these retards waste time and our money on a useless resolution when they should be doing important things like running our country.
What is really criminal is these retards waste time and our money on a useless resolution when they should be doing important things like running our country.
You missed my point.
First show me a link saying the President (a civilian) falls under the UCMJ....You are wrong.
2nd
Your own links defines adultery as:
(1) That the accused wrongfully had sexual intercourse with a certain person;
If they were facts/truth...prove it with links...& I mean PROVE.
What is really criminal is these retards waste time and our money on a useless resolution when they should be doing important things like running our country.
.....running our country...correctly...which means impeaching Obama....
Remember the last time the Republicans played this sick game, putting their interests in front of America's interests we ended up getting attacked on 9-11Because the people that wanted too do harm to our country
I want you to provide sources right now to prove Republicans caused 9/11. Come on, let's see it. If you can't then you need to apologize for being a troll.Running our country correctly involves people who are in fact concerned about our country's interests first and not impeaching the President.
Remember the last time the Republicans played this sick game, putting their interests in front of America's interests we ended up getting attacked on 9-11Because the people that wanted too do harm to our country could see plain as day that the Republicans had taken their eye off the ball.
"Indeed I did have a relationship with Ms Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong." - Bill Clinton
This children is an example of hypocrisy.
Does the irony of this strike anyone else? :lol::lol::lol:
There are actually four. Have you read the contempt ruling?
Yes I have read Judge Wright's ruling and never once did she mention perjur or perjury in her ruling. Also the whole lewinsky fair was thrown out of the Jones case for not being material to the case and the case was dismissed. So again when Clinton lied during that case about "sexual relations" it was using the prosecution's established definition of sexual relations that were agreed upon by both sides. So they got Clinton on an lie that was immaterial to the jones case.
Perjury has three conditions: it must be a lie, the speaker must know it to be false, and it must be material to the case. The lewinsky affair no matter how salacious it was was not deemed material to the jones case. It is why they couldn't charge clinton with perjury.
Federal Judge Wright Finds Clinton in Contempt of Court - The Tech
Monitor: The American press comments on the ruling which finds Clinton in contempt of court - Arts & Entertainment - The Independent
http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/clinton/clin1120.htm
Washingtonpost.com Special Report: Clinton Accused
http://icreport.access.gpo.gov/lewinsky/appf.pdf
Nevertheless, he lied.
Because you want to make this a legalistic argument because that's all you have. We feel the President lied throughout his administration on many things, while you defend him on one point. It's the most silly thing I've ever seen, and you're not the first and probably not the last. You're just new around here.And how exactly does this have to do with someone's claim that he commited perjury which is what I was talking about
Because you want to make this a legalistic argument because that's all you have. We feel the President lied throughout his administration on many things, while you defend him on one point. It's the most silly thing I've ever seen, and you're not the first and probably not the last. You're just new around here.
This man was President of the US, and you play legalese to demonstrate some sort of innocense? :doh
I ask, does anyone on the RIGHT have a problem with this? I don't. Any other concerns, sonny?Back to Joe Wilson any thoughts on Joe voting for the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003 which contained section 1011 which gave money to pay for emergency care of undocumented immigrants
I ask, does anyone on the RIGHT have a problem with this? I don't. Any other concerns, sonny?
No, he voted to give them E-M-E-R-G-E-N-C-Y healthcare, not healthcare insurance. The man is humanitary, not a fool.Seems a little hypocritical of wilson fearing Illegals would get health coverage while voting to provide care for illegals.
No, he voted to give them E-M-E-R-G-E-N-C-Y healthcare, not healthcare insurance. The man is humanitary, not a fool.
Yes I have read Judge Wright's ruling and never once did she mention perjur or perjury in her ruling. Also the whole lewinsky fair was thrown out of the Jones case for not being material to the case and the case was dismissed. So again when Clinton lied during that case about "sexual relations" it was using the prosecution's established definition of sexual relations that were agreed upon by both sides. So they got Clinton on an lie that was immaterial to the jones case.
Perjury has three conditions: it must be a lie, the speaker must know it to be false, and it must be material to the case. The lewinsky affair no matter how salacious it was was not deemed material to the jones case. It is why they couldn't charge clinton with perjury.
There's a fourth -- it must be under oath.
Yes, in the ruling, she said his intent was to "obstruct justice," which is hard to do if it's not material.
Still, materiality is a matter for a jury, and no, it was never charged.
But if you want to hang on a legal technicality, then so be it.
It's not a technicality it didn't fit the legal definition. Apparently it wasn't material as the Jones information was deemed by wright to be immaterial to the case and the Jones case was dismissed. If he committed perjury the judge would have stated such.
Such a ruling would not be within the scope of a contempt finding. It would have to be a matter for trial.
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?