| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Eris" |
| Date: |
16 Jul 2005 11:19:29 AM |
| Object: |
O.T. Did Clinton purjure himself. |
Did Clinton actually purjure himself. I know this has been debated
over and over, but the quote below is from the smart guy in
alt.war.vietnam. He is saying that Clinton did purjure himself and
this is why he was disbarred and empeached.
Can anyone blow this away?
Thanks
Eris.
Before you attempt to make a statement of fact - you ought to make
yourself
familiar with the facts.
Article I of the Bill of Impeachment charges that Clinton willfully
provided
perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury
concerning one
or more of the following:
(1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate
Government employee;
(2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a
Federal
civil rights action brought against him;
(3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to
make to
a Federal judge in that civil rights action
(2) and (3) are specifically related to the Jones Civil Suit and Judge
Wright
.
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Did Clinton purjure himself. |
16 Jul 2005 10:48:53 PM |
|
|
"Eris" <vithant@nospamgmail.com> wrote in message
news:ekcid1dtvf1hogctuj0rob78e7ne0uqgkn@4ax.com...
Did Clinton actually purjure himself?
No. He was acquitted of such charges by the Senate.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The DCLXVIth Earl of Helpus." |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Did Clinton purjure himself. |
16 Jul 2005 11:45:47 AM |
|
|
Eris wrote:
Did Clinton actually purjure himself.
It depends what the meaning of the word 'did' means ;-).
Seriously, if some ***** is claiming he was impeached, that's a
stone cold lie, he wasn't. Here's the stats:
http://pw2.netcom.com/~speaker6/lists/impeach.html
There may be some parallel universe in which a ***** is not 'sexual
relations', but in this one, it is, so quite incontravertibly he did,
and here's the quote: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman,
Miss Lewinsky". Bollocks.
Did he obstruct justice? That's a matter of opinion, but I wouldn't
call being given a grilling about his extramural activities in order to
entrap him into a perjury charge any kind of justice, so as far as I am
concerned, he didn't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Did Clinton purjure himself. |
16 Jul 2005 10:59:26 PM |
|
|
"The DCLXVIth Earl of Helpus." <user13@heathens.org.uk> wrote in message
news:1121532347.573726.150200@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Eris wrote:
Did Clinton actually purjure himself.
It depends what the meaning of the word 'did' means ;-).
Seriously, if some ***** is claiming he was impeached, that's a
stone cold lie, he wasn't.
An impeachment is an accusation. He was formally accused (i.e. impeached) by
the GOP-controlled House for none other than political reasons. He was
acquitted by the Senate, and the GOP didn't even get a numerical majority in
the vote to convict. Clinton was vindicated on that day, Feb. 12, 1999.
Here's the stats:
http://pw2.netcom.com/~speaker6/lists/impeach.html
There may be some parallel universe in which a ***** is not 'sexual
relations', but in this one, it is,
In YOUR parallel universe, perhaps. I, and many others, don't consider
blowjobs to be within the scope of "sexual relations". To most people I
know, "sexual relations" means sexual intercourse. The Catholic girls back
when I was in high school certainly didn't blowjobs to be "sexual
relations".
so quite incontravertibly he did,
and here's the quote: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman,
Miss Lewinsky". Bollocks.
He was not under oath when he made that statement, so even if you are one of
those people who considers blowjobs to be sexual relations, the statement
was not perjury.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Did Clinton purjure himself. |
17 Jul 2005 04:20:04 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 11:59:26 +0800, "Peacenik"
<cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote:
"The DCLXVIth Earl of Helpus." <user13@heathens.org.uk> wrote in message
news:1121532347.573726.150200@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Eris wrote:
Did Clinton actually purjure himself.
It depends what the meaning of the word 'did' means ;-).
Seriously, if some ***** is claiming he was impeached, that's a
stone cold lie, he wasn't.
An impeachment is an accusation. He was formally accused (i.e. impeached) by
the GOP-controlled House for none other than political reasons. He was
acquitted by the Senate, and the GOP didn't even get a numerical majority in
the vote to convict. Clinton was vindicated on that day, Feb. 12, 1999.
What is sad, is that this circus turned the ultimate sanction against
a President for committing "high crimes and misdemeanors" into just
another political maneuver against a President whose part has a
minority in Congress.
Here's the stats:
http://pw2.netcom.com/~speaker6/lists/impeach.html
There may be some parallel universe in which a ***** is not 'sexual
relations', but in this one, it is,
In YOUR parallel universe, perhaps. I, and many others, don't consider
blowjobs to be within the scope of "sexual relations". To most people I
know, "sexual relations" means sexual intercourse. The Catholic girls back
when I was in high school certainly didn't blowjobs to be "sexual
relations".
so quite incontravertibly he did,
and here's the quote: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman,
Miss Lewinsky". Bollocks.
He was not under oath when he made that statement, so even if you are one of
those people who considers blowjobs to be sexual relations, the statement
was not perjury.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Did Clinton purjure himself. |
16 Jul 2005 04:05:46 PM |
|
|
On 16 Jul 2005 09:45:47 -0700, "The DCLXVIth Earl of Helpus."
<user13@heathens.org.uk> wrote:
Eris wrote:
Did Clinton actually purjure himself.
It depends what the meaning of the word 'did' means ;-).
Seriously, if some ***** is claiming he was impeached, that's a
stone cold lie, he wasn't. Here's the stats:
http://pw2.netcom.com/~speaker6/lists/impeach.html
Ahem: Clinton *was* impeached. That is a matter of fact. The Senate
acquitted him.
---
"This is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause"
- Padme Amidala, Episode III
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eris" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Did Clinton purjure himself. |
16 Jul 2005 04:48:24 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:05:46 -0400, raven1
<quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote:
On 16 Jul 2005 09:45:47 -0700, "The DCLXVIth Earl of Helpus."
<user13@heathens.org.uk> wrote:
Eris wrote:
Did Clinton actually purjure himself.
It depends what the meaning of the word 'did' means ;-).
Seriously, if some ***** is claiming he was impeached, that's a
stone cold lie, he wasn't. Here's the stats:
http://pw2.netcom.com/~speaker6/lists/impeach.html
Ahem: Clinton *was* impeached. That is a matter of fact. The Senate
acquitted him.
---
"This is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause"
- Padme Amidala, Episode III
Impeach means to accuse. He was accused and aquitted.
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Did Clinton purjure himself. |
16 Jul 2005 06:26:25 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:48:24 -0400, Eris <vithant@nospamgmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:05:46 -0400, raven1
<quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote:
On 16 Jul 2005 09:45:47 -0700, "The DCLXVIth Earl of Helpus."
<user13@heathens.org.uk> wrote:
Eris wrote:
Did Clinton actually purjure himself.
It depends what the meaning of the word 'did' means ;-).
Seriously, if some ***** is claiming he was impeached, that's a
stone cold lie, he wasn't. Here's the stats:
http://pw2.netcom.com/~speaker6/lists/impeach.html
Ahem: Clinton *was* impeached. That is a matter of fact. The Senate
acquitted him.
Impeach means to accuse. He was accused and acquitted.
I feel like I'm playing "who's on first" here. That differs from what
I just said above how...?
---
"This is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause"
- Padme Amidala, Episode III
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The DCLXVIth Earl of Helpus." |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Did Clinton purjure himself. |
16 Jul 2005 08:48:18 PM |
|
|
raven1 wrote:
On 16 Jul 2005 09:45:47 -0700, "The DCLXVIth Earl of Helpus."
<user13@heathens.org.uk> wrote:
Eris wrote:
Did Clinton actually purjure himself.
It depends what the meaning of the word 'did' means ;-).
Seriously, if some ***** is claiming he was impeached, that's a
stone cold lie, he wasn't. Here's the stats:
http://pw2.netcom.com/~speaker6/lists/impeach.html
Ahem: Clinton *was* impeached. That is a matter of fact. The Senate
acquitted him.
OK, I stand corrected if that is the definition. I always thought it
referred to the successful removal from office i.e. a republic's
equivalent of regicide. If somebody is trying to dismiss Clinton and
everything he stood for simply because he was accused of lying under
oath about something not at all germane to his presidency then America
has learned nothing useful from the McCarthy era and anybody that
worries the political establishment even a tiny little bit can and will
be destroyed even if they don't play into their hands.
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Did Clinton purjure himself. |
16 Jul 2005 09:16:12 PM |
|
|
On 16 Jul 2005 18:48:18 -0700, "The DCLXVIth Earl of Helpus."
<user13@heathens.org.uk> wrote:
raven1 wrote:
On 16 Jul 2005 09:45:47 -0700, "The DCLXVIth Earl of Helpus."
<user13@heathens.org.uk> wrote:
Eris wrote:
Did Clinton actually purjure himself.
It depends what the meaning of the word 'did' means ;-).
Seriously, if some ***** is claiming he was impeached, that's a
stone cold lie, he wasn't. Here's the stats:
http://pw2.netcom.com/~speaker6/lists/impeach.html
Ahem: Clinton *was* impeached. That is a matter of fact. The Senate
acquitted him.
OK, I stand corrected if that is the definition. I always thought it
referred to the successful removal from office i.e. a republic's
equivalent of regicide.
In the US, it refers to the House of Representatives bringing charges
(Articles of Impeachment) against the President. The matter is then
tried in the Senate, (presided over by the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court), which decides his innocence or guilt.
In the history of the Presidency, two Presidents have been impeached:
Andrew Johnson, and Bill Clinton. Both were acquitted by the Senate.
Richard Nixon had Articles of Impeachment drafted against him in 1974,
during the Watergate scandal, and would almost certainly have been
convicted had the matter gone to trial, but he resigned before the
Articles could be brought up for a vote in the House.
In my personal opinion, lying about a consensual affair, even under
oath, does not constitute grounds for impeachment. Lying to start an
unnecessary and unjustified war is another matter entirely.
---
"This is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause"
- Padme Amidala, Episode III
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bad Wolf" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: O.T. Did Clinton purjure himself. |
17 Jul 2005 03:57:04 AM |
|
|
In the great debate about "Re: O.T. Did Clinton purjure himself." in
alt.atheism, raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> catapaulted the
following boulder:
In my personal opinion, lying about a consensual affair, even under
oath, does not constitute grounds for impeachment. Lying to start an
unnecessary and unjustified war is another matter entirely.
So, do enough Republican senators have a conscience?
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N. aa #2208
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Did Clinton purjure himself. |
16 Jul 2005 01:16:37 PM |
|
|
On 16 Jul 2005 09:45:47 -0700, "The DCLXVIth Earl of Helpus."
<user13@heathens.org.uk> wrote:
Eris wrote:
Did Clinton actually purjure himself.
It depends what the meaning of the word 'did' means ;-).
Seriously, if some ***** is claiming he was impeached, that's a
stone cold lie, he wasn't. Here's the stats:
http://pw2.netcom.com/~speaker6/lists/impeach.html
He was impeached. Thre trial in front of the Senate is the
impeachment.
The trial did not find him guitly.
There may be some parallel universe in which a ***** is not 'sexual
relations', but in this one, it is, so quite incontravertibly he did,
and here's the quote: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman,
Miss Lewinsky". Bollocks.
A lot of folk don't feel a ***** is sexual relations".
Did he obstruct justice? That's a matter of opinion, but I wouldn't
call being given a grilling about his extramural activities in order to
entrap him into a perjury charge any kind of justice, so as far as I am
concerned, he didn't.
He was set up by an "independant" counsel who spent 8 years and an
awful lot of money digging up dirt - and asked him a question he had
no right to ask. And in countries where an affair is considered a sin,
people always deny them. Even right-wing Christian fundamentalists.
Compare with the funeral of a French President where his wife and
mistress both attended and stood together.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Did Clinton purjure himself. |
16 Jul 2005 12:12:11 PM |
|
|
In our last episode,
<ekcid1dtvf1hogctuj0rob78e7ne0uqgkn@4ax.com>, the lovely and
talented Eris broadcast on alt.atheism:
Did Clinton actually purjure himself. I know this has been debated
over and over, but the quote below is from the smart guy in
alt.war.vietnam. He is saying that Clinton did purjure himself and
this is why he was disbarred and empeached.
Can anyone blow this away?
Not really. It is pretty clear that he did lie in at least the
case of the deposition in the Paula Jones lawsuit. However, the
crime of perjury is not merely lying under oath, but lying about
a material matter.
For example, if you were watching the Playboy channel when you
heard the shots fired and you looked up and saw the time was
9:45, but when you get to court you don't want people to think
you watch the Playboy channel and you testify that you were
watching PBS when you heard the shots and noted the time was
9:45, that is a lie, but it probably isn't perjury. It is
really very unlikely that what you were watching on TV is
material to matter at hand. What is material is that you heard
the shots and noted the time. And you told the truth about
that.
In the Paula Jones matter, all the stuff about Monica was thrown
out by the judge. True enough, Clinton was fined for lying, but
he wasn't convicted of perjury, and he probably could not have
been convicted of perjury because the stuff he lied about was
ruled immaterial.
True enough he was charged with lying and perjury in the
articles of impeachment. But he wasn't convicted on any of the
articles. So what the articles of impeachment said is pretty
much a dead letter. He wasn't convicted.
He was suspended from the bar for lying under oath. That isn't
same thing as perjury. You can lose your law license
permanently or temporarily for lots of things that are not
crimes.
Bottom line: he lied, yes. He committed perjury - not proven.
--
Rev. Lars Eighner ULC Atheist #1965 http://www.larseighner.com/
The Mint Jelly of GodŽ -- The World's Best Atheist -- Unholier Than Thou
I don't see posts from or threads started from googlegroups.
"Billy Graham is the chief servant of Satan in America." --Jerry Falwell
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Did Clinton purjure himself. |
17 Jul 2005 12:21:30 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:19:29 -0400, Eris <vithant@nospamgmail.com>
thought hard and wrote:
Did Clinton actually purjure himself. I know this has been debated
over and over, but the quote below is from the smart guy in
alt.war.vietnam. He is saying that Clinton did purjure himself and
this is why he was disbarred and empeached.
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky"
Oh, yes, you did, Bubba.
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 17 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Did Clinton purjure himself. |
17 Jul 2005 12:45:46 AM |
|
|
"Daniel Kolle" <Daniel.Kolle@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rlqjd1l6lvumbursgv1iqtgsavlbl5jasc@4ax.com...
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:19:29 -0400, Eris <vithant@nospamgmail.com>
thought hard and wrote:
Did Clinton actually purjure himself. I know this has been debated
over and over, but the quote below is from the smart guy in
alt.war.vietnam. He is saying that Clinton did purjure himself and
this is why he was disbarred and empeached.
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky"
That statement was made at a press conference, not in the courtroom.
Oh, yes, you did, Bubba.
Only if you believe a ***** is "sexual relations".
--
Peacenik
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Did Clinton purjure himself. |
17 Jul 2005 06:55:06 AM |
|
|
Daniel Kolle <Daniel.Kolle@gmail.com> wrote in
news:rlqjd1l6lvumbursgv1iqtgsavlbl5jasc@4ax.com:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:19:29 -0400, Eris <vithant@nospamgmail.com>
thought hard and wrote:
Did Clinton actually purjure himself. I know this has been debated
over and over, but the quote below is from the smart guy in
alt.war.vietnam. He is saying that Clinton did purjure himself and
this is why he was disbarred and empeached.
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky"
Oh, yes, you did, Bubba.
That wasn't perjury. The perjury was committed in front of a grand jury,
and had to do with his testimony about sexual harrassment of Paula Jones
and others.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Political correctness is a form of moral and emotional blackmail
whereby if you call a spade a spade you must
a) apologize to the spade,
b) if you live in the US, take a sensitivity training course, or
c) if you live in Old Yurp, you are taken to court for defamation of the
aforementioned spade.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eris" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Did Clinton purjure himself. |
17 Jul 2005 10:45:48 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 11:55:06 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
Daniel Kolle <Daniel.Kolle@gmail.com> wrote in
news:rlqjd1l6lvumbursgv1iqtgsavlbl5jasc@4ax.com:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:19:29 -0400, Eris <vithant@nospamgmail.com>
thought hard and wrote:
Did Clinton actually purjure himself. I know this has been debated
over and over, but the quote below is from the smart guy in
alt.war.vietnam. He is saying that Clinton did purjure himself and
this is why he was disbarred and empeached.
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky"
Oh, yes, you did, Bubba.
That wasn't perjury. The perjury was committed in front of a grand jury,
and had to do with his testimony about sexual harrassment of Paula Jones
and others.
cite?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Did Clinton purjure himself. |
17 Jul 2005 10:53:43 AM |
|
|
"Eris" <vithant@nospamgmail.com> wrote in message
news:29vkd1lidb1aedu4adno3e38ecbbl9q1t5@4ax.com...
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 11:55:06 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
Daniel Kolle <Daniel.Kolle@gmail.com> wrote in
news:rlqjd1l6lvumbursgv1iqtgsavlbl5jasc@4ax.com:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:19:29 -0400, Eris <vithant@nospamgmail.com>
thought hard and wrote:
Did Clinton actually purjure himself. I know this has been debated
over and over, but the quote below is from the smart guy in
alt.war.vietnam. He is saying that Clinton did purjure himself and
this is why he was disbarred and empeached.
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky"
Oh, yes, you did, Bubba.
That wasn't perjury. The perjury was committed in front of a grand jury,
and had to do with his testimony about sexual harrassment of Paula Jones
and others.
cite?
He can't cite, because there was no perjury.
The accusation of perjury turned out to be a sham. Clinton was acquitted by
the Senate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Did Clinton purjure himself. |
17 Jul 2005 11:17:32 AM |
|
|
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:dbduu4$hk1$1@news.seed.net.tw:
"Eris" <vithant@nospamgmail.com> wrote in message
news:29vkd1lidb1aedu4adno3e38ecbbl9q1t5@4ax.com...
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 11:55:06 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
Daniel Kolle <Daniel.Kolle@gmail.com> wrote in
news:rlqjd1l6lvumbursgv1iqtgsavlbl5jasc@4ax.com:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:19:29 -0400, Eris <vithant@nospamgmail.com>
thought hard and wrote:
Did Clinton actually purjure himself. I know this has been debated
over and over, but the quote below is from the smart guy in
alt.war.vietnam. He is saying that Clinton did purjure himself and
this is why he was disbarred and empeached.
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky"
Oh, yes, you did, Bubba.
That wasn't perjury. The perjury was committed in front of a grand
jury, and had to do with his testimony about sexual harrassment of
Paula Jones and others.
cite?
He can't cite, because there was no perjury.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/09/articles.docs/
The accusation of perjury turned out to be a sham. Clinton was
acquitted by the Senate.
That was a political matter. He was disbarred on the same charges after
he left office.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Political correctness is a form of moral and emotional blackmail
whereby if you call a spade a spade you must
a) apologize to the spade,
b) if you live in the US, take a sensitivity training course, or
c) if you live in Old Yurp, you are taken to court for defamation of the
aforementioned spade.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Did Clinton purjure himself. |
17 Jul 2005 11:15:37 AM |
|
|
Eris <vithant@nospamgmail.com> wrote in
news:29vkd1lidb1aedu4adno3e38ecbbl9q1t5@4ax.com:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 11:55:06 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
Daniel Kolle <Daniel.Kolle@gmail.com> wrote in
news:rlqjd1l6lvumbursgv1iqtgsavlbl5jasc@4ax.com:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:19:29 -0400, Eris <vithant@nospamgmail.com>
thought hard and wrote:
Did Clinton actually purjure himself. I know this has been debated
over and over, but the quote below is from the smart guy in
alt.war.vietnam. He is saying that Clinton did purjure himself and
this is why he was disbarred and empeached.
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky"
Oh, yes, you did, Bubba.
That wasn't perjury. The perjury was committed in front of a grand
jury, and had to do with his testimony about sexual harrassment of
Paula Jones and others.
cite?
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/09/articles.docs/
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Political correctness is a form of moral and emotional blackmail
whereby if you call a spade a spade you must
a) apologize to the spade,
b) if you live in the US, take a sensitivity training course, or
c) if you live in Old Yurp, you are taken to court for defamation of the
aforementioned spade.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
