Why does the Right have such a hard-on for blaming Clinton?

[Master of Ossus]

As opposed to resolution 1441 and its 'serious consequences'? And why would it be EXPLICITY ILLEGAL all of a sudden, if the proposed resolution was struck down?

Because that's how international law in the UN works. 1441 provided them with enough to legally cover their bases. However, if they sought another resolution that was then struck down by the UN, that would make any military actions illegal because the UN would have rejected their ability to apply force.

[Vympel]

Wrong thread, MoO?

[Perinquus]

No, they decline to prosecute if they can't establish a clear-cut case or if the judge would toss the case as too weak to stand on its merits, and the notion that they didn't pursue a prosecution against Clinton out of sympathy for him is laughable on its face. Too bad if that doesn't suit you. Perhaps you should be getting your legal expertise from somebody more reliable than Oliver Wendell Dimwit.

A dig against Oliver Wendell Holmes? And you are better versed in the law than one of the most revered judges ever to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court how exactly? You will understand, I trust, if I give such a snide and childish dismissal of an acknowledged first rank legal expert by a layman who hasn't a tiny fraction of said expert's knowledge of the law the scant regard it deserves.

No, it's a dig against your manifest stupidity and your fanatacism.

Ah, an ad hominem then. In other words, a worthless fallacy.

And the notion that they didn't pursue a prosecution against Clinton out of sympathy for him is not laughable on its face. I have seen often enough that prosecutors will fail to pursue a case when the defendant is technically in violation of the law, but because they believe the jury will be sympathetic to him, and therefore likely to acquit, they do not believe it is worth pursuing.

That isn't sympathy on the part of the court, that's legal calculus.

And does not change for instant the fact that he is guilty, and they know he is guilty.

How else do you explain lawyers who really do believe Clinton committed perjury, also believing that the prosecution will likely fail?

And you again demonstrate that the issue here is not as clear-cut as you made it out to be in your earlier hyperventilation.

It is likeliest because they believe the jury will consider that although he did lie, it was over a private matter irrelevant to his ability to function as president, and what's the big deal anyway, it's not like he lied about some notable crime like the Watergate break in for example. So while he is, strictly speaking, absolutely in violation of the law, the jury will likely acquit because they will believe the violation to have occured over a small matter, and thus the prosecutor would choose not to gamble on it in court. Also, though Lewinsky is definitely a more credible witness than Clinton in this case, it's still a "her word against his" case, without a third party to back her up, or without some piece of hard evidence. So a jury will likely give Clinton the benefit of the doubt, especially since they would likely consider the whole issue to be over a matter small enough not to be worth a felony conviction, regardless of the technicalities of the case.

And you'd advance that argument before or after the judge would toss you out of court for advancing a prosecution on a case with such shaky support? If you're really the expert you claim yourself to be, then you of all people should know how infirm the position you're arguing here is.

It's not the most solid legal case in the world, but it's also not as infirm as you'd like to think. Much as you'd like to dismiss it, credibility matters. Jury's occasionally have convicted in her word against his cases because one party has credibility and the other doesn't.

Lawyers do think like this, I see it all the time. It doesn't change the fact that Clinton lied while under oath, and only a naive trusting fool would imagine otherwise in the circumstances.

In your opinion.

The man got on TV and brazenly lied through his fucking teeth to the people who elected him president. He has no goddamn credibility. You would have to be an idiot to trust his word. Apparently you do, so I guess you are.

Clinton's lie to the American people on TV is immaterial to the issue of his testimony in the court, so you can take that Ad-Hominem and cram it up your ass. Furthermore, Clinton never tried to contradict Lewinsky's affidavit or to say she was lying, so her credibility as a witness is a non-issue here as well.

I see. So when a man shamelessly tells a direct lie to the nation on national television, we should just disregard that. It proves him to be a man with no qualms whatever about lying, but that's irrelevant to the issue of whether or not we should take him at his word.

God almighty. What a world you must live in.

Now the court defined sexual relations as "contact with the genitalia, arms, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person", and this credible witness testified that he fondled her breasts (which I would definitely say qualifies as "contact with the breasts"), and that he manually stimulated her to orgasm, which I think we can pretty safely say qualifies as "contact with the genitalia with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire" of Monica Lewinsky.

A defintion so vague as to be legally meaningless and which still did not include the definition of sexual relations as laid out in common law or oral sex —the latter being omitted by the trial judge herself.

So the fuck what? A definition was provided, and Clinton knew what that definition was. He then denied committing any act that fits that definition, and a more credible witness refuted his testimony.

Your position appears to be that no matter what the court specified, it's not the common law definition of sex, so he didn't lie. Well get it through your head stupid - the court didn't ask him if he had sexual relations according to the common law definition. They asked him if he had sexual relations according to the definition the court laid down. He denied having done so, and a more credible witness said he did.

That fact is not altered no matter how many times you wish to toss the quotation of the court's definition at the deposition hearing at me.

Fine, that fact is not altered. Clinton didn't lie about having sex according to the common law definition. Since the court didn't ask whether or not he had sexual relations according to that definition, that objection is completely irellevant, but you have fun with it.

So, we have a credible witness stating that Clinton performed certain acts that exactly match the definition of sexual relations laid down by the court. And on the other hand, we have a less than credible witness (to say the least) stating under oath that he did not do these things. Now by what tortuous rationalization do you arrive at the conclusion that this is not perjury?

There is no "torturous rationalisation" involved: the court and Jones' lawyers left a loophole through which Clinton was able to tell the precise, legal truth.

So, Clinton was stating the precise legal truth when he claimed he never did anything like fondle Lewinsky's breasts, even though he did? And he was telling the precise legal truth when he said he never did anything like manually stimulate her to orgasm, even though he did? I guess the precise legal truth is different from the plain truth, so Clinton wasn't really lying.

You cannot, with any authority, declare what exactly was in Clinton's mind to demonstrate specific intent (surely you understand that term, Mr. Lawyer) or that he didn't believe his statements on the matter to be truthful as he understood them.

Then Clinton would have to be a complete idiot to have misunderstood, since the definition of sexual relations was spelled out in very plain English. He denied doing anything that fit that definition, and that denial is not credible.

And yes, I understand the term intent, thank you very much. I also understand that lawyers are able to demonstrate intent without the necessity of mind reading. By your standard, we could never establish intent under any circumstances since we can't read minds. Good thing the legal system doesn't follow your rules.

It's called "benefit of the doubt". And your evident inability to grasp or acknowledge the concept demonstrates the very fanatacism Darth Wong spoke of earlier in this thread.

I also understand benefit of doubt very well. What I don't undserstand is how you can define an unwillingness to give that benefit of doubt to a proven liar fanaticism. Seems like plain old good sense to me.

[SirNitram]

The man got on TV and brazenly lied through his fucking teeth to the people who elected him president. He has no goddamn credibility. You would have to be an idiot to trust his word. Apparently you do, so I guess you are.

There are people in existance who think politicians don't lie?!

[fgalkin]

The man got on TV and brazenly lied through his fucking teeth to the people who elected him president. He has no goddamn credibility. You would have to be an idiot to trust his word. Apparently you do, so I guess you are.

Who are you talking about? Clinton or Bush?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Perinquus]

The man got on TV and brazenly lied through his fucking teeth to the people who elected him president. He has no goddamn credibility. You would have to be an idiot to trust his word. Apparently you do, so I guess you are.

There are people in existance who think politicians don't lie?!

Of course not. Well... maybe there are, but I am not one of them.

But there is a difference between the general knowledge that politicians lie, and being caught in specific lie. If a prosecutor gets a witness to say something on a witness stand, and he can produce a quote the same person made on the very same subject which is known to be a lie... it kind of destroys that person's credibility.

[SirNitram]

The man got on TV and brazenly lied through his fucking teeth to the people who elected him president. He has no goddamn credibility. You would have to be an idiot to trust his word. Apparently you do, so I guess you are.

There are people in existance who think politicians don't lie?!

Of course not. Well... maybe there are, but I am not one of them.

But there is a difference between the general knowledge that politicians lie, and being caught in specific lie. If a prosecutor gets a witness to say something on a witness stand, and he can produce a quote the same person made on the very same subject which is known to be a lie... it kind of destroys that person's credibility.

Soooooo it's perfectly fine for them to lie about the things they will be elected for, but OH MY GOD HE'S EVIL if he lies about his sex life on TV. Have I mentioned you strike me as a retard who knows how to cloak his stupidity and fanaticism in pretty words?

[Darth Wong]

But there is a difference between the general knowledge that politicians lie, and being caught in specific lie. If a prosecutor gets a witness to say something on a witness stand, and he can produce a quote the same person made on the very same subject which is known to be a lie... it kind of destroys that person's credibility.

Only on a subject (his marital fidelity and sex life) in which he had no credibility since long before he was elected, so who gives a fuck?

Want a real lie? Try "Read my lips, No new taxes".

[SirNitram]

But there is a difference between the general knowledge that politicians lie, and being caught in specific lie. If a prosecutor gets a witness to say something on a witness stand, and he can produce a quote the same person made on the very same subject which is known to be a lie... it kind of destroys that person's credibility.

Only on a subject (his marital fidelity and sex life) in which he had no credibility since long before he was elected, so who gives a fuck?

Want a real lie? Try "Read my lips, No new taxes".

Or how about Saddam's 'Imminent threat'?

[Master of Ossus]

Only on a subject (his marital fidelity and sex life) in which he had no credibility since long before he was elected, so who gives a fuck?

Want a real lie? Try "Read my lips, No new taxes".

Mike, are you saying that Clinton was honest and credible in his political dealings?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Only on a subject (his marital fidelity and sex life) in which he had no credibility since long before he was elected, so who gives a fuck?

Want a real lie? Try "Read my lips, No new taxes".

Mike, are you saying that Clinton was honest and credible in his political dealings?

No, he didn't even remotely hint that. In fact, I'd say your post is a excellent point toward what this thread has been trying to say.

[Iceberg]

Clinton's lie to the American people on TV is immaterial to the issue of his testimony in the court, so you can take that Ad-Hominem and cram it up your ass. Furthermore, Clinton never tried to contradict Lewinsky's affidavit or to say she was lying, so her credibility as a witness is a non-issue here as well.

I see. So when a man shamelessly tells a direct lie to the nation on national television, we should just disregard that. It proves him to be a man with no qualms whatever about lying, but that's irrelevant to the issue of whether or not we should take him at his word.

That's why I don't trust and don't like President Bush.

[Perinquus]

But there is a difference between the general knowledge that politicians lie, and being caught in specific lie. If a prosecutor gets a witness to say something on a witness stand, and he can produce a quote the same person made on the very same subject which is known to be a lie... it kind of destroys that person's credibility.

Only on a subject (his marital fidelity and sex life) in which he had no credibility since long before he was elected, so who gives a fuck?

If it is just another lie he told to people, I'd agree. But this is a lie told under oath, and is felony. I have this strange idea that presidents ought not commit felonies. I know that most of them probably have, but they shouldn't, and when they get caught doing it, there ought to be a price to pay.

Want a real lie? Try "Read my lips, No new taxes".

Sure it was, but it wasn't made under oath. A lie such as that carries no criminal penalties. The only penalty for a lie like that is not getting re-elected.

[SirNitram]

But there is a difference between the general knowledge that politicians lie, and being caught in specific lie. If a prosecutor gets a witness to say something on a witness stand, and he can produce a quote the same person made on the very same subject which is known to be a lie... it kind of destroys that person's credibility.

Only on a subject (his marital fidelity and sex life) in which he had no credibility since long before he was elected, so who gives a fuck?

If it is just another lie he told to people, I'd agree. But this is a lie told under oath, and is felony. I have this strange idea that presidents ought not commit felonies. I know that most of them probably have, but they shouldn't, and when they get caught doing it, there ought to be a price to pay.

I was unaware he was under oath during that press conference. Perhaps you will show he being sworn in for it.

And this legalistic stuff amazes me. It's fine to lie about what you're elected for, but if your private life is targetted by a ridiculous witch hunt and you lie about it, THEN, then, my friends, you are evil. But you can lie about everything else, including costly wars, and you're fine.

Have you heard of morality?

[Perinquus]

But there is a difference between the general knowledge that politicians lie, and being caught in specific lie. If a prosecutor gets a witness to say something on a witness stand, and he can produce a quote the same person made on the very same subject which is known to be a lie... it kind of destroys that person's credibility.

Only on a subject (his marital fidelity and sex life) in which he had no credibility since long before he was elected, so who gives a fuck?

Want a real lie? Try "Read my lips, No new taxes".

Or how about Saddam's 'Imminent threat'?

Well, since Bush didn't call it an imminent threat, what about it?

In fact, he specifically used language that the threat was not imminent, but advanced the position that we needed to attack Saddam before it became so. This is not to say that the arguments Bush used weren't exagerrated or false, but let's at least get the facts straight.

Ben Fritz wrote the most rational article I've seen on the subject:

Sorting out the "imminent threat" debate

Many liberal critics have asserted that a central claim in President Bush's case for war in Iraq was that Iraq posed an "imminent threat." They argue that it's now clear that no such threat existed, and thus the President's argument has been revealed as deceptive or illegitimate. Conservatives retort that Bush never actually used the phrase and in fact specifically used language indicating that the threat was not imminent on several occasions.

As a factual matter, conservatives are largely correct and liberal critics and journalists are guilty of cheap shots or lazy reporting. However, the evidence is not completely clear and both sides are guilty of distorting this complex situation for political gain. Specifically, while there's some evidence indicating the Bush administration did portray Iraq as an imminent threat, there's much more that it did not. Those attempting to assert that the White House called Iraq an imminent threat are ignoring significant information to the contrary. Similarly, those who say the Bush administration never used the phrase or implied as much are ignoring important, though isolated, evidence.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As we have pointed out before, many of the arguments for war made by the Bush administration were deceptive or false. However, critics who make it appear that the Bush administration's case relied primarily on claims of an imminent threat distort a more complex argument that painted Iraq as an intolerable, but not imminent, threat. Those unfair attacks do not make it legitimate for Bush supporters to jump on any critic who uses the phrase, however, or claim that nobody in the administration ever suggested Iraq could pose an "imminent threat." Complexity is not an excuse for cheap shots from either side.

[Perinquus]

Only on a subject (his marital fidelity and sex life) in which he had no credibility since long before he was elected, so who gives a fuck?

If it is just another lie he told to people, I'd agree. But this is a lie told under oath, and is felony. I have this strange idea that presidents ought not commit felonies. I know that most of them probably have, but they shouldn't, and when they get caught doing it, there ought to be a price to pay.

I was unaware he was under oath during that press conference. Perhaps you will show he being sworn in for it.

I'm referring to the lie he told in his deposition. The lie in that press conference wasn't perjury, it just undermines the hell out of his (already shaky) credibility.

And this legalistic stuff amazes me. It's fine to lie about what you're elected for, but if your private life is targetted by a ridiculous witch hunt and you lie about it, THEN, then, my friends, you are evil. But you can lie about everything else, including costly wars, and you're fine.

Have you heard of morality?

Have you ever heard of perjury? If he didn't want to incriminate himself he should have stood on his fifth amendment rights. No one held a gun to his head and forced him to commit a felony.

[Keevan_Colton]

Yet more long winded shit.

It's evil for clinton to lie at a press confrence about sex.

It's ok for bush to lie at a press confrence about war.

[SirNitram]

Only on a subject (his marital fidelity and sex life) in which he had no credibility since long before he was elected, so who gives a fuck?

Want a real lie? Try "Read my lips, No new taxes".

Or how about Saddam's 'Imminent threat'?

Well, since Bush didn't call it an imminent threat, what about it?

No, that was Rumsfeild, as I recall. I beleive a recording of his exact words caused his great consteration when it was played back for him...

But what about what Bush did say, instead of waving it aside? Like reciting a claim stated to be wrong(The whole yellowcake stuff)?

In fact, he specifically used language that the threat was not imminent, but advanced the position that we needed to attack Saddam before it became so. This is not to say that the arguments Bush used weren't exagerrated or false, but let's at least get the facts straight.

Ben Fritz wrote the most rational article I've seen on the subject:

So it's fine for Bush to use precise language to avoid outright lying, but when Clinton did it, it is EVIL OMFG HE IS TEH DEVIL.

Riiiiight.

[SirNitram]

If it is just another lie he told to people, I'd agree. But this is a lie told under oath, and is felony. I have this strange idea that presidents ought not commit felonies. I know that most of them probably have, but they shouldn't, and when they get caught doing it, there ought to be a price to pay.

I was unaware he was under oath during that press conference. Perhaps you will show he being sworn in for it.

I'm referring to the lie he told in his deposition. The lie in that press conference wasn't perjury, it just undermines the hell out of his (already shaky) credibility.

Yep, he doesn't have credibility on his personal life. I'm waiting for why this matters for a President. Unless you want to continue with the fallacious statement of 'He lied about getting sex, therefore he is a bad leader'.

And this legalistic stuff amazes me. It's fine to lie about what you're elected for, but if your private life is targetted by a ridiculous witch hunt and you lie about it, THEN, then, my friends, you are evil. But you can lie about everything else, including costly wars, and you're fine.

Have you heard of morality?

Have you ever heard of perjury? If he didn't want to incriminate himself he should have stood on his fifth amendment rights. No one held a gun to his head and forced him to commit a felony.

If he committed perjury, and it's so open and shut.. Why hasn't he been charged? There's certainly enough of the Right's resources spent on demonizing him. Why not just convict and have done?

[Perinquus]

Yet more long winded shit.

It's evil for clinton to lie at a press confrence about sex.

It's ok for bush to lie at a press confrence about war.

You're breaking my heart.

First off, prove that Bush lied. Exagerrate, yes, certainly. Selctively ignore evidence, yeah, probably that too. Lie, as in intentionally decieve the American people telling them that Iraq had WMDs when he knew for a fact they didn't, as opposed to simply buying faulty intelligence... well as I said, prove it.

And in any case, your assertion is a strawman. I never suggested that "It's ok for bush to lie at a press confrence about war". However, it just so happens that lying at a press conference is not a crime. It may be reprehensible, but it isn't criminal. Perjury, on the other hand, is. Lying at a press conference carries no criminal penalties, it merely carries the risk of losing the next election. Funny thing about elections too, they just so happen to be the mechanism by which the American people hold elected officials accountable for their actions while they're in office. If enough people think Bush was wrong, they'll vote him out of office just like they did his father.

[Keevan_Colton]

More long winded shit, I sense a pattern from you.

Bush used information known at that time to be false. That's a pretty fucking good way to define a lie, telling something you know not to be true.
Amazingly, the same thing you're pissed at Clinton for, though of course, Clinton was talking about his personal life which has no bearing on the nation and Bush was organising a war, so of course, Clinton is the worse...

The legal business as has been stated, if Clinton was guilty of purgery then why has he not been prosecuted for it?

[Perinquus]

So it's fine for Bush to use precise language to avoid outright lying, but when Clinton did it, it is EVIL OMFG HE IS TEH DEVIL.

Riiiiight.

It's funny how, even though I have said over and over again that it was lying under oath, that is a crime, your eyes just glide right over that part. Even though I have stated explicitly that the lies Clinton told in his press conference are simply lies, not criminal offenses, you insist on building up this strawman.

Alright, since you seem to have difficulty reading plain English, let me state it as plainly as I possibly can. And if this doesn't make my position clear, I don't know what to tell you, aside from advising you to go back to school.

Clinton lying on TV, or lying in the newspapers, or publishing books containing lies, or any such lying as that, is merely reprehensible. There's noting criminal about it. It's not impeachable. It merely makes him untrustworthy - though admittedly no more so than many other politicians. If Clinton had only lied here, he would just be another lying politician.

However lying under oath is a criminal offense. It is a felony. And Clinton was under oath when he submitted his deposition. Sorry if it hurts you that he broke the law, but there you are.

[SirNitram]

So it's fine for Bush to use precise language to avoid outright lying, but when Clinton did it, it is EVIL OMFG HE IS TEH DEVIL.

Riiiiight.

It's funny how, even though I have said over and over again that it was lying under oath, that is a crime, your eyes just glide right over that part. Even though I have stated explicitly that the lies Clinton told in his press conference are simply lies, not criminal offenses, you insist on building up this strawman.

No, the problem is you are obsessing over what is legal, whereas I am not giving a shit over whether there is a shaky case for perjury against one man over the other. I am getting to the heart of the matter:

Both made statements they knew to be false. One made it about his sex life, something the American people have no need to know about. The other, about the threat Iraq posed(Specifics, you ask? Niger Yellowcake for a start). The lie about sex has hurt no one. The lie about Iraq has sent us into a costly war.

You can prattle on about how I'm strawmanning you, but I'm not. As from the beginning, I am not falling into the fallacious trap of the legality of it. I am confronting which is more damaging to the people who elected them.

[Perinquus]

More long winded shit, I sense a pattern from you.

Bush used information known at that time to be false. That's a pretty fucking good way to define a lie, telling something you know not to be true.
Amazingly, the same thing you're pissed at Clinton for, though of course, Clinton was talking about his personal life which has no bearing on the nation and Bush was organising a war, so of course, Clinton is the worse...

The legal business as has been stated, if Clinton was guilty of purgery then why has he not been prosecuted for it?

More failure to understand plain English, I sense a pattern from you. Somone else I have to use small words for.

Bush deceiving people bad. But him not under oath. It not perjury. Clinton under oath. It perjury. I already say why Clinton not prosecuted in other post while back. If Bush lie and people think so, he not get elected in November. That how Americans decide if it bad. You not like Bush, no vote for him.

[SirNitram]

More long winded shit, I sense a pattern from you.

Bush used information known at that time to be false. That's a pretty fucking good way to define a lie, telling something you know not to be true.
Amazingly, the same thing you're pissed at Clinton for, though of course, Clinton was talking about his personal life which has no bearing on the nation and Bush was organising a war, so of course, Clinton is the worse...

The legal business as has been stated, if Clinton was guilty of purgery then why has he not been prosecuted for it?

More failure to understand plain English, I sense a pattern from you. Somone else I have to use small words for.

Bush deceiving people bad. But him not under oath. It not perjury. Clinton under oath. It perjury. I already say why Clinton not prosecuted in other post while back. If Bush lie and people think so, he not get elected in November. That how Americans decide if it bad. You not like Bush, no vote for him.

Hey, Ug. Once you learn how to make fire, we'll start working on this concept called Morality. It's similar to Legality, only it's not Legality, there's less convenient loopholes like 'It's not under oath! It's not under oath!'.