Who remembers the watergate scandal? Who remembers the Iran/contra scandal?

[Stealers Wheel]

I was 1 at that time but ever since I read about it at 18 it still astounds me how right-wingers could defend that guy. There are just so many aspects to that scandal that go against supposed conservative 'ethics.' It's one example of many that convinced me conservatives don't care about ethics. They just care about their team winning.

I recall a lot of my friends were Marines and they hated it when North stood there in his class A uniform and invoked the 5th. They said it was a disgrace.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

As Ronny would say - "there you go again". Comey said that that there was evidence of "carelessness" in her handling of sensitive classified information.

Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System — FBI

Director Comey's statement to the press on the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State.

www.fbi.gov

Should be interesting to see if Trump is going to held to the same standard as Clinton in his mishandling of classified information

Colin Powell SoS under Bush said he too had used a private server while serving. Not a peep from the GOP. And ultimately, several republicans admitted the pursuit of Hillary was intended to hurt her politically, not criminally. That is why no charges were ever referred to the DOJ.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

I have never been accused of being far left, but if that's your story, stick to it.


Go for it. We know from declassified files that the prosecutor knew genuinely innocent but pushed forward in spite of that.


Coerced confessions are old hat in some places. We used to think that USA was above such tactics.

Strike one against you.


Silly. Strike two.


Strike three. You're out.

Flynn was innocent but the DoJ prosecuted anyway. The Judge had proof of his innocence and tried to keep it out of the record.


Correct.


Most often this is true. We have some notable exceptions.


They are not spies by trade, but they can easily spy. All it requires is a disregard for procedure, the law, and the Constitution.


State the facts from the very beginning.

Work on your base because your attempt was weak. You didn't come close to putting the ball in play.

If Flynn was innocent, he committed perjury when he allocuted for a crime he didn't commit. That's a standard of any plea deal. You have to tell the truth to the court regarding the crime to which you are pleading guilty.

 

[jnug]

Who remembers the watergate scandal? Who remembers the Iran/contra scandal?​

I have already posted here that I remember them both. The Watergate scandal was the more important by far because it changed everything.

The cultural crossover between poor and middle class white Americans and poor and middle class black Americans was very strong, almost intensely so in the 1970's. If you actually know anything about the cultural icons of that day (the artists, mainly musicians and songwriters) they are the obvious sign posts for how strong the cultural crossover of that time was.

The country was truly closer to paying off on the promise of the aspirational goals expressed in our Founding documents and not just for the white men of property that it was written by but for ALL OF US until about 1980.

When Watergate happened the monied power brokers of the Right were really thrown by that. Never mind that Nixon was a crook, a cracked dome and power mad and the VP, Agnew was more a standard fair Republican crook. In their view their guy got run out of town on a rail and they were God Damned determined that was not going to happen again. So as I have said elsewhere recently, guys like the Koch Brothers, actually the Koch family and other powerful Conservatives came out guns blazing. The Koch family started the Cato Institute in 1974. That sound like an interesting year to start something like the Cato Institute? By 1980 they were really rolling and the rest is as they say, history.

These monied Conservative interests had collectively determined that this cultural crossover between blacks and whites was cross purposes to their goals and intentions for this country. They began the process of chopping away at it. As you can plainly see, they were very successful. We have poor and middle class white Americans now considering anybody not them as the enemy, not just another American that might have different views but as an enemy. That of course generates similar feelings from black Americans and the rest of the American societal puzzle falls on similar dividing lines. Women of all races long repressed by white men fall on the other side from white men unless they are happy to be hog tied and dragged behind their man. The LGBTQ community falls on the same side of the divide as women and black Americans though generally heterosexual black American men tend to have some difficulty with the LGBTQ community.

In effect we have the traditional repressed and oppressed in this country now almost entirely on the other side of the fence from the engrossed with victimization narratives poor and middle class white Americans and rich white Americans....an oddball combination if there ever was one except that it is the same bad deal that poor white farmers got when they got talked into defending an antebellum South that they could barely see if they looked over the gate of the big plantation before the Civil War.

The governmental divide in DC can be traced back to Newt Gingrich. But the cultural divide can be traced back to Watergate and Nixon's ultimate resignation, how big monied Conservative interests viewed that whole phenomenon and what they did about it. Now the cultural divide in America is plainly visible to the enemies and adversaries of the United States and they have all sorts of tools they use to pick at the scab and make sure it stays an open wound. But it started with Watergate and we are now sort of living Watergate's revenge.

 

[US&THEM]

Actually, it was AG John Ashcroft that covered the nude statues during press conferences. He was quite the prude. He was also the one who tried to enforce his objection to Oregon's physician-assisted suicide law by threatening to administratively revoking any doctor's DEA license if they even suspected they had participated in Death with Dignity. Fortunately, the courts shut that scheme down hard.

Ashcroft was the same guy who created the anti-porn task forces after 9-11.

 

[Athanasius68]

No that is not what you said. You are trying to make it sound like Flynn was like some 17-18 year old wannabe gangbanger being sweated and intimidated by the NY City police interrogators. The evidence against Flynn was presented to in the discovery phase to his Covington & Burlington defense team. Which was rated as being the #1 law firm in Washington DC by Vault.com. For Christ's sake he was an Army General and headed up the military's counterintelligence agency. He's not any kind of newbie to this kind of stuff.

Flynn never saw the actual transcript of the conversation until after his plea deals.
He accepted the claims of the prosecutor.

What it showed that he had clearly implied that the Trump Administration would be amenable to modifying or eliminating the sanctions imposed upon them. Which would be direct undermine of previously established US foreign policy.

No-- he said Russia should not overreact,
Its not clear why that would have been USA foreign policy under the Obama Admin.

The Executive does not have the authority to drop the charges. In fact protocol requires that the Executive should not be directly and publicly interjecting it's own interest's or desires into any ongoing investigation or prosecution. As Biden has done in regard to the DOJ investigation of his son. Sullivan clearly indicated in his response to the Flynn pardon that without that pardon he would have issued a ruling to dismiss Barr's motion and proceed to prosecute Flynn on the charges of making a false statement to a federal agent, being an unregistered foreign agent for Turkey, and for perjury in his allocution response to the court.

The Executive is the branch that prosecutes, or not. Its an authority of that branch of government.
Sullivan could have issued whatever order he wished; if the executive had no desire to pursue the case that is the end of it. Surely you don't believe that the judge had the authority to pursue the prosecution of Mr. Flynn, while at the same time being an honest broker between Mr. Flynn and the government?

As there was no Trump/Russia conspiracy, and as there was never anything showing that Flynn was operating as a Russian agent, there was no 'personal" interest of Mr. Trump-- aside perhaps from executing his authority that the laws "taking care" of.

 

[hanger4]

For Civil Contempt of court. That's why. Not perjury and not for a criminal offense.

For lying under oath before a Grand Jury. A false statement is perjury when it is made under oath or made under penalty of perjury.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Flynn never saw the actual transcript of the conversation until after his plea deals.
He accepted the claims of the prosecutor.

Why would he need the transcript? He knew what he said. He knew exactly what the conversation was about.

If what you say is true, Flynn lied to the judge when he allocuted for the plea deal. But you're cool with that.

 

[bongsaway]

Try explaining the actions of democrats who made up Trump Russia Collusion and who have hidden the Hunter Biden Laptop scandal.

Try finding some proof to back up your claims.

 

[Athanasius68]

Why would he need the transcript? He knew what he said. He knew exactly what the conversation was about.

If what you say is true, Flynn lied to the judge when he allocuted for the plea deal. But you're cool with that.

The allegation was that he told the FBI something different than what he had discussed with the ambassador.
In any trial, the transcript of that conversation between he and Kisylak would have been evidence.

Flynn didn't commit perjury when he allocuted because he didnt have all the facts.
Including the fact that there was no reason to think he was acting as an agent of Russia, and thus nothing to investigate.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

The allegation was that he told the FBI something different than what he had discussed with the ambassador.
In any trial, the transcript of that conversation between he and Kisylak would have been evidence.

Flynn didn't commit perjury when he allocuted because he didnt have all the facts.
Including the fact that there was no reason to think he was acting as an agent of Russia, and thus nothing to investigate.

So when Flynn admitted to lying to the FBI, and you're saying he didn't lie to the FBI, that was the truth? He didn't lie to the FBI, yet he told the judge he did. How does one reconcile what appears to be two contradictory statements? He didn't lie to the FBI and he told the judge he did lie to the FBI, and that is why he pleaded guilty to that charge.

You insist on having it both ways.

 

[Atomic Kid]

For lying under oath before a Grand Jury. A false statement is perjury when it is made under oath or made under penalty of perjury.

Lying to a grand jury or making false statements under oath is perjury, a criminal offense. Unless one is a Supreme Court nominee apparently. Clinton was charged with a civil offense. Not a criminal offense. What part of that don’t you get?

 

[hanger4]

Lying to a grand jury or making false statements under oath is perjury, a criminal offense. Unless one is a Supreme Court nominee apparently. Clinton was charged with a civil offense. Not a criminal offense. What part of that don’t you get?

I get it just fine, perjury is lying while under oath, lying under oath is perjury in any official proceeding, criminal or civil.

 

[Atomic Kid]

I get it just fine, perjury is lying while under oath, lying under oath is perjury in any official proceeding, criminal or civil.

Perjury is a criminal charge. Period. If the court determines that you committed perjury then you get charged with that criminal offense. If the Court determines that you haven't or determines there isn't enough evidence to sustain a charge of perjury then no criminal charge is leveled against you. The sanction the court leveled against Clinton was a civil offense. Not a criminal offense. Is that clear enough for you or do I need dumb it down to the level of see Spot run, run Spot run?

 

[j brown's body]

Anybody listen to Flynn these days? Boy, he is over the top. Total Qanon nutjob.

 

[hanger4]

Perjury is a criminal charge. Period. If the court determines that you committed perjury then you get charged with that criminal offense. If the Court determines that you haven't or determines there isn't enough evidence to sustain a charge of perjury then no criminal charge is leveled against you. The sanction the court leveled against Clinton was a civil offense. Not a criminal offense. Is that clear enough for you or do I need dumb it down to the level of see Spot run, run Spot run?

You've said that several times, it does change that fact that lying under oath in any court proceeding is perjury, criminal or civil.

 

[jnug]

Perjury is a criminal charge. Period. If the court determines that you committed perjury then you get charged with that criminal offense. If the Court determines that you haven't or determines there isn't enough evidence to sustain a charge of perjury then no criminal charge is leveled against you. The sanction the court leveled against Clinton was a civil offense. Not a criminal offense. Is that clear enough for you or do I need dumb it down to the level of see Spot run, run Spot run?

Well if the place you are trying to get with this is that Perjury in a civil case involving an act of adultery is not an impeachable offense you are correct. Impeachable offenses are offenses of high office, that is what the words in the Impeachment clause of the Constitution "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" mean.

Boinking the Intern and then lying about it in a Civil Trial does not meet the High Crimes and Misdemeanors standard. The GOP House simply hacked the word "High" off the front end of High Crimes and Misdemeanors and Impeached Clinton for Crimes and Misdemeanors. Impeachment was all people after Clinton's hide over this bit of nonsense had which means they had NOTHING. They could not Indict him for Perjury as a sitting President and Clinton had not committed a High Crime or High Misdemeanor in either the adultery or in the Perjury that came after. This was IMO the most absurd use of Impeachment in history....a clown car of the absurd from start to finish.

It was even high comedy by the time it was over with Clinton essentially claiming that he had not committed a sex act because he did not consider a blowjob a sex act. Everybody bent around the axle because the GOP was absolutely insistent on embarrassing Clinton. They were smart enough (I would hope) to know they did not have a case for Impeachment. But never let it be said that the GOP would let reality impede a shit show. All the GOP accomplished was embarrassing Clinton, themselves and the whole country. Could you imagine what the world thought of that mess?

 

[Atomic Kid]

You've said that several times, it does change that fact that lying under oath in any court proceeding is perjury, criminal or civil.

Then it shouldn't that hard for you to show me where Clinton was charged with perjury. But let me save you the trouble of searching for it. Because he never was charged with perjury. Which is a very specific statutory crime. If he had clearly committed perjury he would have been charged with perjury. In the Jones lawsuit the judge cited Clinton for civil contempt of court for providing misleading testimony. Clinton was ordered to pay $1,202 to the court and an additional $90,000 to Jones's lawyers for expenses incurred, far less than the $496,000 that Jones lawyers originally requested. Independent Counsel Robert Ray, who took over for Kenneth Star, charged Clinton with "conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice". Not perjury. Were Clinton's actions of the sort we would like to see from a President charged with the responsibility of enforcing federal laws as in telling lies in order to save his marriage or spare himself from extreme embarrassment? No, not all. But in regard to the question of impeachment the American public was prepared to allow that the President may be a little above the law, that some 'felonies' can be excused when they seem the harmless consequence of human weaknesses that never should have been a subject of legal proceedings, that prosecutorial excess can mitigate a defendant's guilt, and that pragmatic considerations should bear heavily on the decision to force a President from office." Afterall it's not like he tried to shakedown a foreign ally by illegally withholding Congressionally approved vital military aid in order to secure a completely baseless publicly announce investigation of his primary political opponent from that ally that would benefit himself ahead of an national election. Or promote, organize. and incite an attack upon our democracy in his attempt to prevent the peaceful and rightful constitutional transfer of power.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Well if the place you are trying to get with this is that Perjury in a civil case involving an act of adultery is not an impeachable offense you are correct. Impeachable offenses are offenses of high office, that is what the words in the Impeachment clause of the Constitution "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" mean.

Boinking the Intern and then lying about it in a Civil Trial does not meet the High Crimes and Misdemeanors standard. The GOP House simply hacked the word "High" off the front end of High Crimes and Misdemeanors and Impeached Clinton for Crimes and Misdemeanors. Impeachment was all people after Clinton's hide over this bit of nonsense had which means they had NOTHING. They could not Indict him for Perjury as a sitting President and Clinton had not committed a High Crime or High Misdemeanor in either the adultery or in the Perjury that came after. This was IMO the most absurd use of Impeachment in history....a clown car of the absurd from start to finish.

It was even high comedy by the time it was over with Clinton essentially claiming that he had not committed a sex act because he did not consider a blowjob a sex act. Everybody bent around the axle because the GOP was absolutely insistent on embarrassing Clinton. They were smart enough (I would hope) to know they did not have a case for Impeachment. But never let it be said that the GOP would let reality impede a shit show. All the GOP accomplished was embarrassing Clinton, themselves and the whole country. Could you imagine what the world thought of that mess?

Did Clinton intend to mislead his questioners? Oh yeah, he certainly did. But the Bronston case emphasized that intent to mislead is not the legal standard in deciding whether someone made a false statement under federal perjury law. It is up to the examining lawyer to establish a clear record of the witness's testimony. This is something that the Jones lawyers failed to do. Instead of probing how Clinton understood phrases like "sexual relationship," they handed him their own definition. This textualized prescriptive definition provided Clinton with an opportunity to search for loopholes. And he found them. But yeah, all in all it really was much ado about nothing. Our European counterparts have been dealing with questions like this far longer than we have been. And they have a much less of a Puritanical view than we do, or did anyway. They have learned to acknowledge that those in positions of power and or wealth will have have more opportunities to engage in sexual adventures/liaisons than the average person as being a part of human nature and as long as it doesn't hinder the running of the state or compromise it's security they're willing to accept it as being a part of the landscape. They don't expect them to be total saints in that regard anyway.

 

[hanger4]

Then it shouldn't that hard for you to show me where Clinton was charged with perjury. But let me save you the trouble of searching for it. Because he never was charged with perjury. Which is a very specific statutory crime. If he had clearly committed perjury he would have been charged with perjury. In the Jones lawsuit the judge cited Clinton for civil contempt of court for providing misleading testimony. Clinton was ordered to pay $1,202 to the court and an additional $90,000 to Jones's lawyers for expenses incurred, far less than the $496,000 that Jones lawyers originally requested. Independent Counsel Robert Ray, who took over for Kenneth Star, charged Clinton with "conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice". Not perjury. Were Clinton's actions of the sort we would like to see from a President charged with the responsibility of enforcing federal laws as in telling lies in order to save his marriage or spare himself from extreme embarrassment? No, not all. But in regard to the question of impeachment the American public was prepared to allow that the President may be a little above the law, that some 'felonies' can be excused when they seem the harmless consequence of human weaknesses that never should have been a subject of legal proceedings, that prosecutorial excess can mitigate a defendant's guilt, and that pragmatic considerations should bear heavily on the decision to force a President from office." Afterall it's not like he tried to shakedown a foreign ally by illegally withholding Congressionally approved vital military aid in order to secure a completely baseless publicly announce investigation of his primary political opponent from that ally that would benefit himself ahead of an national election. Or promote, organize. and incite an attack upon our democracy in his attempt to prevent the peaceful and rightful constitutional transfer of power.

Here's the Arkansas Statute for perjury;

A person commits perjury if in any official proceeding he or she makes a false material statement, knowing it to be false, under an oath required or authorized by law

Bill Clinton was punished via fine and lose of law license for lying under oath, aka, perjury.

 

[hanger4]

Well if the place you are trying to get with this is that Perjury in a civil case involving an act of adultery is not an impeachable offense you are correct. Impeachable offenses are offenses of high office, that is what the words in the Impeachment clause of the Constitution "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" mean.

Boinking the Intern and then lying about it in a Civil Trial does not meet the High Crimes and Misdemeanors standard. The GOP House simply hacked the word "High" off the front end of High Crimes and Misdemeanors and Impeached Clinton for Crimes and Misdemeanors. Impeachment was all people after Clinton's hide over this bit of nonsense had which means they had NOTHING. They could not Indict him for Perjury as a sitting President and Clinton had not committed a High Crime or High Misdemeanor in either the adultery or in the Perjury that came after. This was IMO the most absurd use of Impeachment in history....a clown car of the absurd from start to finish.

It was even high comedy by the time it was over with Clinton essentially claiming that he had not committed a sex act because he did not consider a blowjob a sex act. Everybody bent around the axle because the GOP was absolutely insistent on embarrassing Clinton. They were smart enough (I would hope) to know they did not have a case for Impeachment. But never let it be said that the GOP would let reality impede a shit show. All the GOP accomplished was embarrassing Clinton, themselves and the whole country. Could you imagine what the world thought of that mess?

Riiiiiiight, the highest law officer in the land can lie under oath in an attempt to deny a US citizen a fair trial and you don't believe that's a high crime of misdemeanor.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Here's the Arkansas Statute for perjury;

A person commits perjury if in any official proceeding he or she makes a false material statement, knowing it to be false, under an oath required or authorized by law

Bill Clinton was punished via fine and lose of law license for lying under oath, aka, perjury.

You can't seem to get it through your head that perjury is a criminal offense. Clinton as not cited by the judge in the Paula Jones suit for having committed a "criminal offense". The judge cited Clinton for having committed a "civil offense". Can't you read and understand plain English for Christ's sake?

 

[hanger4]

You can't seem to get it through your head that perjury is a criminal offense. Clinton as not cited by the judge in the Paula Jones suit for having committed a "criminal offense". The judge cited Clinton for having committed a "civil offense". Can't you read and understand plain English for Christ's sake?

You can't seem to get it through your head that lying under oath is perjury whether in a criminal trial or civil suit. BC was sanctioned for perjury.

I've already posted the Arkansas statute, it makes no distinction between criminal, civil or any other official proceeding where an oath is required. Lying under oath is perjury, perjury is lying under oath.

 

[jnug]

Riiiiiiight, the highest law officer in the land can lie under oath in an attempt to deny a US citizen a fair trial and you don't believe that's a high crime of misdemeanor.

That is correct. The boinking of the intern and the lie that followed while Perjury or not had NOTHING to do with a function of high office. Plumbers do it, dishwashers do it, account executives do it, real estate agents do it on and on and on. Did boinking the intern and lying about it prevent Clinton from:
- nuclear weapons negotiation and warhead deactivation
- cutting the welfare rolls
- paying down the national debt
- protecting more National Lands in the lower 48 than any President in history
- converting what was the largest public deficit in history to largest surplus
- lowering government spending to the lowest level since 1966
- enacting sweeting gun legislation that unfortunately had a sunset negotiated into it, legislation that gun control proponents long for to this day (rightly or wrongly)

There was nothing about Clinton boinking the intern and lying about that had anything whatsoever to do with a crime of high office. That his "accomplice" in this adultery was a WH Intern had nothing to do with anything in a discussion of what is or what is not a crime of high office.

 

[NWRatCon]

Junior in high school for Watergate. I thought Nixon was a crook, told my mother so in '72, before she voted for him, and a literal "I told you so" a year and a half later (or whatever it was.)

I didn't like Reagan (reasons), and Iran/Contra cemented that view. I was 20 something, and like high school, my time was consumed with things other than politics.

Reagan is what turned me away from being a Republican.I thought, at the time, Nixon was an exception. It turns out Eisenhower was the exception. Corruption in the GOP has a much better pedigree. Teapot Dome anyone? Watergate? Iran-Contra? Iraq War? It goes all the way back to the Grant administration.