posted
i don't have that kind of disrespect for her rim,
my problem with her is that IMO? she will just be a return to willy's cabinet...
as i've said before ? they at least hired people that deserved their jobs, (unlike many of Bushes appointees) but that doesn't mean i agree with their policy attitudes..
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
IMO? the monica thing was a disgrace to the whole nation, not just the GOP, who ran whitewater thing over the waterfall, but to Linda Trip who broke the MD wiretap laws, anne coulter for pushing Linda into going public and especially to Willy for (IMO) taking advantage of young person who was his EMPLOYEE...
i could care less if their marriage is open or not...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
"clinton lied under oath... it's not a topic of "debate" he did it... live with it..."
Yes, but it is not a criminal offense. It is civil, such a thing as bankruptcy or liability for a tree in your yard falling into the street and hitting a parked car. He has not been charged or convicted of any crime such as lying to disrupt a criminal investigation or diverting federal funds from the sale of weapons to Iran to support a South American revolution.
(The fact that his testimony, in a civil trial, was called false testimony because it conflicted with testimony specifically from "secret" (and most certainly questionable) grand jury testimony was and is is a crime.)
Contrary to your repeated assertions and implications, Clinton did not commit any crime with his testimony ...."...live with it..."
"i don't agree with MOST of their policies.."
I don't either.
"and for you to say that we still have a GOP majority or that the Dems didn't pass Bush's legislation tells me that you don't have a clue what's going on..."
I never said such a thing or anything that could be reasonably so misinterpreted. I said that in order to get a bill thorough congress requires having 60 votes in the senate in order to get it to a vote on the floor of the Senate and the republican control more than 40 Senate votes and used that to stop any and all democratic efforts to end the Iraq mess.
It isn't the democrats stopping or refusing, it is the republicans.
You pass out RNC doctrine repeatedly, such as the incessant blaming of Pelosi and Reid for the republican partisan political divisiveness that stops legislation that the people want done now to stop the irresponsible war in Iraq. Pelosi and Reid do not control those 40+ votes stopping the process in the Senate....the republican party does! If it could get a floor vote, then Bush would veto it and the republicans DO NOT WANT a failure to fund the troops laid on their watch.
"(H)illary has been in control of the dems for a long time..."
is another favored RNC total falsehood without basis of any kind. Were it even fancifully close to fact, how did Reed become the Senate Mamority Leader?
Rim,
The point is, ANYBODY IS BETTER THAN BUSH or anyone that will carry on this disgraceful Iraq occupation and the even more disgraceful attacks on the Constitution. All of the realistically possible republican candidates have promised to maintain "business as usual" and :sty the course" to victory, (whateverr they now mean by victory).
"Do you honestly believe that relationship is real? If so what kind of a woman does that make her? Is she a woman scorn? Something tells me no....JUST A CARPET-BAGGIN AND MUNCHING BULL-DYKE."
Your attitude concerning Hillary Clinton is vulgar as much so as the vulgar language you state it in. It is none of your business, or mine, what is the basis of their relationship. It is their sacred and private relation and you and the republican party show about as much respect for it as you do for mine or some Joe Blow's or anyone whose ancestors to the forth generation weren't all born free, white, and 21 and in the continental United States (and that is just one single reason for fear of Party and its intentions).
(Your always flippant, too often improper, and generally insulting attitude about anything or anybody not pre-sanctioned by the RNC brands your concern for this Nation as second, at best, to your Party. That's sad....not just that you do it, but your whole party treats the rest of the world that way. It didn't used to be that way. Maybe you support eschewing diplomacy in favor of John Wayne-ing things and the "shock and awe" theory of international relations because you have completely lost the art of diplomacy and know only crudeness and arrogance.)
There is more to leading that force. (Most mule teams are driven from the rear by an often harsh but familiar protective voice, but I suppose you have to have had some serious exposure to mules and mule skinners to know that.
Franklin could never get Adams to understand about compromise and cajoling in the art of diplomacy. As a result, Adams was a hopeless failure in France, while Franklin not only brought home the bacon, he toted back to these shores the entire whole carcass of the beast he went hunting.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but it is not a criminal offense. It is civil,
Clinton lied to a grand jury bdgee.... i think you are truly confused about what a crime that is...
Contempt of court citation
In April 1999, about two months after being acquitted by the Senate, Clinton was cited by Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright for civil contempt of court for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. For this citation, Clinton was assessed a $90,000 fine, and the matter was referred to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if disciplinary action would be appropriate.
Regarding Clinton's January 17, 1998, deposition where he was placed under oath, the judge wrote:
"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false . . . ."
In January 2001, on the day before leaving office, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license as part of an agreement with the independent counsel to end the investigation. Based on this suspension, Clinton was automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar, from which he then chose to resign
that's the "rub" huh?
not criminal enough to be a "crime", but criminal enough for disbarment and to be found in civil contempt...
it's funny how if you agree with me, i'm not spouting RNC "credo" but if i disagree? in am RNC "parrot" ....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it walks like a parrot, and squaks like a parrot... Guess what?
Glassman want a cracker? ...
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
That lie and its fallacious implication come directly from the propaganda machine of the RNC and you repeat it (like a Party loyalist?).
There is no such thing as a grand jury for a civil action.
Moreover, Clinton voluntarily requested suspension from the Arkansas Bar Association, which was the only such association in which he was a member. Thereafter, "Based on this suspension, Clinton was automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar" (a technicality, because it requires a state license to practice law, which in turn requires an active membership in a state bar association) "from which he then chose to resign", (borrowing a quote from your own quote above).
There is a big difference in disbarment and voluntary suspension or resignation of membership in a bar association. Accidentally confusing the two things is shameful when you are using it as a tool to smear the standing or stature of a political opponent....then there is intentionally misrepresenting one as the other.
I don't really believe the republicans are so ignorant of the facts and the law that they are confused. Is it that the republican machine was so disgusting and disheartened in their open hatred of the man after being unable to make their specious impeachment work that they decided to smear him by claiming he was fired from a job he quit?
Richard Nixon was disbarred. Bill Clinton was not, he resigned. You posted quotation to that fact yourself....
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: "Clinton lied to a grand jury bdgee"
NO HE DID NOT!!!!!
That lie and its fallacious implication come directly from the propaganda machine of the RNC and you repeat it (like a Party loyalist?).
There is no such thing as a grand jury for a civil action.
Moreover, Clinton voluntarily requested suspension from the Arkansas Bar Association, which was the only such association in which he was a member. Thereafter, "Based on this suspension, Clinton was automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar" (a technicality, because it requires a state license to practice law, which in turn requires an active membership in a state bar association) "from which he then chose to resign", (borrowing a quote from your own quote above).
There is a big difference in disbarment and voluntary suspension or resignation of membership in a bar association. Accidentally confusing the two things is shameful when you are using it as a tool to smear the standing or stature of a political opponent....then there is intentionally misrepresenting one as the other.
I don't really believe the republicans are so ignorant of the facts and the law that they are confused. Is it that the republican machine was so disgusting and disheartened in their open hatred of the man after being unable to make their specious impeachment work that they decided to smear him by claiming he was fired from a job he quit?
Richard Nixon was disbarred. Bill Clinton was not, he resigned. You posted quotation to that fact yourself....
lol budgee... now you are the one buying and selling spin....
i was hoping you'd just forget about this stupid idea that i need to be spoonfed data and stop calling me a RNC parrot and accept the fact that i have a mind of my own: but since you insist?...
here's how clinton 'splained his testimony, in his own words:
President Bill Clinton Aug. 17, 1998
CLINTON: Good evening.
This afternoon in this room, from this chair, I testified before the Office of Independent Counsel and the grand jury.
I answered their questions truthfully, including questions about my private life, questions no American citizen would ever want to answer.
Still, I must take complete responsibility for all my actions, both public and private. And that is why I am speaking to you tonight.
As you know, in a deposition in January, I was asked questions about my relationship with Monica Lewinsky. While my answers were legally accurate, I did not volunteer information.
Indeed, I did have a relationship with Miss Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible.
But I told the grand jury today and I say to you now that at no time did I ask anyone to lie, to hide or destroy evidence or to take any other unlawful action.
I know that my public comments and my silence about this matter gave a false impression. I misled people, including even my wife. I deeply regret that.
I can only tell you I was motivated by many factors. First, by a desire to protect myself from the embarrassment of my own conduct.
I was also very concerned about protecting my family. The fact that these questions were being asked in a politically inspired lawsuit, which has since been dismissed, was a consideration, too.
In addition, I had real and serious concerns about an independent counsel investigation that began with private business dealings 20 years ago, dealings I might add about which an independent federal agency found no evidence of any wrongdoing by me or my wife over two years ago.
The independent counsel investigation moved on to my staff and friends, then into my private life. And now the investigation itself is under investigation.
This has gone on too long, cost too much and hurt too many innocent people.
Now, this matter is between me, the two people I love most -- my wife and our daughter -- and our God. I must put it right, and I am prepared to do whatever it takes to do so.
Nothing is more important to me personally. But it is private, and I intend to reclaim my family life for my family. It's nobody's business but ours.
Even presidents have private lives. It is time to stop the pursuit of personal destruction and the prying into private lives and get on with our national life.
Our country has been distracted by this matter for too long, and I take my responsibility for my part in all of this. That is all I can do.
Now it is time -- in fact, it is past time to move on.
We have important work to do -- real opportunities to seize, real problems to solve, real security matters to face.
And so tonight, I ask you to turn away from the spectacle of the past seven months, to repair the fabric of our national discourse, and to return our attention to all the challenges and all the promise of the next American century.
posted
the sad truth bdgee? i really don't care one bit about monica anymore...
what i do care about is trade policies, and nation building policies, and individual freedom policies, billary isn't gonna roll back ANY presidential powers if they get back in office.
but you keep accusing me of bullchit, so i'll just keep proving to you that i base my opinions on facts as best as i can determine them...
i know you have this habit of calling everything GOP propaganda, but the fact is that i want Bloomberg and Nagel to run.... as independants...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"billary isn't gonna roll back ANY presidential powers if they get back in office."
Is a statement based purely on bias and, strangely, coinciding with RNC propaganda.
I remain of the opinion the Clinton won't win the nomination (or Obama). I base that on the history of early front runners over the years. Although, I must admit she stands in a much stronger position than have most, considering the name recognition and her Senate membership.
I can't imagine any third party candidate doing anything other than disrupting the people's choice. I also can't imagine Negal bolting the Party.....could happen, but i don't yet consider it likely.
"it doesn't matter how much whitewash you throw on it..."
It isn't whitewash, it is fact. What you are doing is smearing crap over that fact.
Clinton did not lie to a grand jury, he was not found guilty of any crime, he was not disbarred
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You need to try and forget the hateful smearing of the man and his wife with false claims. If you don't like him or her, fine.....say so...but that does not justify presenting as fact things that are false or even impossible.
I don't see any of the republican candidates that has much chance of overcoming the disgust and distrust the public holds for republican abuse of power. It isn't just dubya's abuse of power or the Administration's, it is the fact that the republican machine refused to allow Congress to stop it and still does. And it isn't only in dealing with the Iraq war. It is systemic.
An even more obvious reason that none of the republican likely candidates can win is that everyone of them is promising to take up where dubya leaves off in Iraq and that is not even close to what the public wants.
There never has been and never will be a perfect candidate for president or a perfect president. There will always be some difference between him or her and each of us...sometimes many of us. That is why the Constitutional proscribed separation of powers and checks and balances are essential for the health of this Nation. But face facts, republican abuse of power simply ignores those functions of our government and overrides the Constitution in favor of Party loyalty and the nation is in danger as a result.
I'll tell you where there was a lie sworn to under oath, in both 2000 and 2004. I'll just provide a part of the oath sworn before a Federal Judge acting in official capacity in an official and Constitutionally required procedure: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute...and...preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'll tell you where there was a lie sworn to under oath, in both 2000 and 2004. I'll just provide a part of the oath sworn before a Federal Judge acting in official capacity in an official and Constitutionally required procedure: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute...and...preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The same lie was told in 1997, 1993, 1989 and on and on.
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: You need to try and forget the hateful smearing of the man and his wife with false claims. If you don't like him or her, fine.....say so...but that does not justify presenting as fact things that are false or even impossible.
bdgee. i have presented facts here straight up. instead of presenting factual rebuttals? you are the one that has been disingenuous...
show me one false hood that i presented as fact.. use specific quotes and prove that it's falsehood...
you can't, cuz i didn't...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You claimed more then once that Bill Clinton lied to a grand jury. He did not. He was never before a grand jury.
That's one. Don't bother me with proving more, I can but your game of demanding proof for stuff has been met. I will not play that game again.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: You claimed more then once that Bill Clinton lied to a grand jury. He did not. He was never before a grand jury.
That's one. Don't bother me with proving more, I can but your game of demanding proof for stuff has been met. I will not play that game again.
he was never before a grand jury?
budgee... i posted you in Clintons own words that he admitted to not being honest to the grand jury..
you are FOS...
President Bill Clinton Aug. 17, 1998
CLINTON: Good evening.
This afternoon in this room, from this chair, I testified before the Office of Independent Counsel and the grand jury.
I answered their questions truthfully, including questions about my private life, questions no American citizen would ever want to answer.
Still, I must take complete responsibility for all my actions, both public and private. And that is why I am speaking to you tonight.
As you know, in a deposition in January, I was asked questions about my relationship with Monica Lewinsky. While my answers were legally accurate, I did not volunteer information.
Indeed, I did have a relationship with Miss Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible.
But I told the grand jury today and I say to you now that at no time did I ask anyone to lie, to hide or destroy evidence or to take any other unlawful action.
I know that my public comments and my silence about this matter gave a false impression. I misled people, including even my wife. I deeply regret that.
I can only tell you I was motivated by many factors. First, by a desire to protect myself from the embarrassment of my own conduct.
I was also very concerned about protecting my family. The fact that these questions were being asked in a politically inspired lawsuit, which has since been dismissed, was a consideration, too.
In addition, I had real and serious concerns about an independent counsel investigation that began with private business dealings 20 years ago, dealings I might add about which an independent federal agency found no evidence of any wrongdoing by me or my wife over two years ago.
The independent counsel investigation moved on to my staff and friends, then into my private life. And now the investigation itself is under investigation.
This has gone on too long, cost too much and hurt too many innocent people.
Now, this matter is between me, the two people I love most -- my wife and our daughter -- and our God. I must put it right, and I am prepared to do whatever it takes to do so.
Nothing is more important to me personally. But it is private, and I intend to reclaim my family life for my family. It's nobody's business but ours.
Even presidents have private lives. It is time to stop the pursuit of personal destruction and the prying into private lives and get on with our national life.
Our country has been distracted by this matter for too long, and I take my responsibility for my part in all of this. That is all I can do.
Now it is time -- in fact, it is past time to move on.
We have important work to do -- real opportunities to seize, real problems to solve, real security matters to face.
And so tonight, I ask you to turn away from the spectacle of the past seven months, to repair the fabric of our national discourse, and to return our attention to all the challenges and all the promise of the next American century.
Clinton revises timeline of Lewinsky affair Book's account differs with grand jury testimony
Wednesday, June 23, 2004 Posted: 7:49 AM EDT (1149 GMT) Clinton's memoirs have thrust him back in the
(CNN) -- In his new memoir, former U.S. President Bill Clinton says his "inappropriate" encounters with Monica Lewinsky began when she claimed they did, during the government shutdown in November 1995.
That account contradicts his August 1998 testimony before a federal grand jury that investigated the case.
The discrepancy between testimony by Clinton and Lewinsky about the timing of the affair was one of the points that led the House to impeach Clinton for providing false testimony to the grand jury about "the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate government employee."
In his 1998 testimony, the former president said, "When I was alone with Ms. Lewinsky on certain occasions in early 1996 and once in early 1997, I engaged in conduct that was wrong."
That timeline would have put the start of the affair after Lewinsky had completed her White House internship and had taken a staff job.
But on page 773 of his book, "My Life," Clinton said, "During the government shutdown in late 1995, when very few people were allowed to come to work in the White House and those who were there were working late, I'd had an inappropriate encounter with Monica Lewinsky and would do so again on other occasions between November and April, when she left the White House for the Pentagon."
"For the next 10 months, I didn't see her, although we talked on the phone from time to time," he said.
In her grand jury testimony, Lewinsky said their sexual relationship began on November 15, 1995, at a time when government officers were shut down because of a budget dispute between Clinton and the Republican Congress.
Independent counsel Ken Starr, in his report to Congress recommending impeachment, said the motive for Clinton to lie about the timing of the affair "appears to have been that the president was unwilling to admit sexual activity with a young 22-year-old White House intern in the Oval Office area."
You did not post in Clinton's own words that he lied to a grand jury. You have chosen to misinterpret facts.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
man, he gave you the quote and the link.. what do you need him to do call clinton up and have him stop by your house
CLINTON: Good evening.
This afternoon in this room, from this chair, I testified before the Office of Independent Counsel and the grand jury.
good stuff, you guys are funny.
-------------------- "Gentleman, you have come sixty days too late. The depression is over." Herbert Hoover 1930 Posts: 678 | From: currently in hiding due to investigation | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no grand jury in a civil proceding.
Your links are specious if they say that Clintons testimony was to a grand jury. It was in a civil deposition. Either you sources are incorrect (Starr, for example leaked secret testimony to the judge in the civil case, making clear that the one was willing to tell a lie to reach his ends and the other, was willing to accept violation of the rule of law in order to hand Clinton) or you have misinterpreted what they say.
Again, Clinton did not lies to a grand jury. You claim is false.
Moreover, there is serious consideration that the statement the judge claims is false is a bogus interpretation of the fact.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Clinton was not charged with and not convicted of any criminal offense.....ever.
He did not lie to any grand jury and the judge that cited him for contempt was citing him with civil contempt.
The republicans have posted to the internet hundreds of thousands of lies about that fact (yes, Starr lied, in addition to publicising secret (by law) grand jury testimony (not of Clinton, but of Lewinslki) and you continue their cause.
The civil action in which Clinton was cited for lying was a civil deposition and there is no criminal penalty therefore. He resigned both his membership in the Arkansas Bar Association and in the Bar of the Supreme Court; they were not taken from him as a punishment for conviction in any criminal proceeding.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
He didn't lie, Rim, though you and your absolute republican bias do call it that.
Sexual activity, by definition, not by religious or social connotation, requires the act of insertion of the male member into the female for human beings. He stated he did not have sexual relations, not that he did not have lustful relations.
Moreover, it is not a criminal offense to lie on TV or in public. Were that the case, where would we have the entire republican party now. (And don't give me that republican line of BS that the democrts do it too......the democrats didn't ignore facts and lie to bring about the Iraq invasion (except maybe Lieberman, who is a republican in sheeps clothing. And they did not vote to invade Iraq. That is a pure lie. They voted to give the president power to use force olny after exausting all other means....he and his republiucan party did not do as the vote required.)
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sexual activity, by definition, not by religious or social connotation, requires the act of insertion of the male member into the female for human beings. He stated he did not have sexual relations, not that he did not have lustful relations.
I dont know bout you...but in my neighborhood if you insert yo thang in a womans mouth, ear, nose....etc.......well dem be SEXUAL RELATIONS
-------------------- "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication" Posts: 4005 | From: Shaolin | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For you to let him slide on such a gross technicality shows your allegiance to the DNC Oberman, Franken, parrot, propaganda, facist, neo con game etc etc etc
-------------------- "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication" Posts: 4005 | From: Shaolin | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: He didn't lie, Rim, though you and your absolute republican bias do call it that.
Sexual activity, by definition, not by religious or social connotation, requires the act of insertion of the male member into the female for human beings. He stated he did not have sexual relations, not that he did not have lustful relations.
Moreover, it is not a criminal offense to lie on TV or in public. Were that the case, where would we have the entire republican party now. (And don't give me that republican line of BS that the democrts do it too......the democrats didn't ignore facts and lie to bring about the Iraq invasion (except maybe Lieberman, who is a republican in sheeps clothing. And they did not vote to invade Iraq. That is a pure lie. They voted to give the president power to use force olny after exausting all other means....he and his republiucan party did not do as the vote required.)
that still brings us back to you saying i lied which is not true...
this whole {re}definition of sex is what opened the door for Bush and Rove to recruit the whole conservative Church into their corner...
these decent folks were appalled to hear your definition of sex, and know it's just a lie... Clinton had sex with an intern.. that's a violation of his office.. period. no debate..
and he admits in his memoirs.
this legal "manueuvering" with the use of words is also the same BS the Bushies are doing to abuse their power, which brings me back to Hillary being Bush light...
thanx for making MY point budgee, i knew you could do it if you tried...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
....![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
