Look, you and magellan01 keep insisting that Clinton comitted some crime. Since this is Great Debates, where our motto is “Cite?”, we expect you to back up your assertions. The burden of proof is on the one making the accusation.
But if you can’t, you can’t.
Clinton was found to have committed perjury and obstruction of justice in his testimony before a grand jury investigating the Paula Jones sexual harrassment case by various entities empowed to make such findings. These include the U.S. House of Representatives (and, IIRC, the Senate but for one more vote), the Arkansas State Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court, and he was disbarred by both courts as a result. Due to the fact that he was the president of the U.S. at the time, he was allowed to settle out of court rather than face trial. The settlement included an agreement from the prosecutor that Clinton would not face prosecution once he was out of office. This does not mean that he committed no crimes and it also doesn’t mean that it’s wrong to speak of his having committed these crimes. “Innocent until proven guilty” is a courtroom standard only and it does not preclude actual guilt itself. If I rob somebody, I’m guilty of that crime whether I’m convicted of it or not, and if I somehow manage to settle out of court, I still broke the law. It’s sophistry to suggest that, unless someone can point to the statute that I was allowed to escape prosecution for, I did not commit the crime.
Nope, sorry. Unless a criminal statute is violated, there is no crime. Let me know when you decide which statute you think Clinton violated and we’ll take a look at it.
By this logic, ISTM that you’d also have to acknowledge that since “virtually everyone in the whole world knows what a lying, cheating, duplicitous, perjuring scumbag” George W. Bush really is, it’s allowable to speak of Bush’s having committed crimes as well.
But you see, my extraordinarily myopic friend, a criminal statute was violated: the one which holds that it’s illegal to commit perjury and obstruction of justice before a grand jury.
As for the rest, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Can you come up with the findings of a court with jurisdiction that found that Bush perjured himself? Such was the case with Clinton - the judge stated for the record that Clinton had, in fact, made false and misleading statements with intent to deceive, and Clinton stipulated to this as true.
Regards,
Shodan
Addressed to Kimstu, of course.
Regards,
Shodan
I would say that if Congress and a couple of supreme courts are able to find and point to specific instances of Bush lying, then it would be accurate to state that he had committed a crime.
As for “cheating, duplicitous…scumbag”, that’s what he is; not what he was disbarred and fined for.
OK, and this would be a violation of what statute?
Let’s see what the statute says, and whether the facts fit the statutory language.
Also, please provide a cite to the court order you reference, and the stipulation you reference, and let’s take a look at those.
Its the Clinton virus - it invades threads and alters their DNA.
Will it come out of a dress?
But if the fact that “virtually everyone in the whole world knows” he’s a liar is irrelevant in Bush’s case, it’s irrelevant in Clinton’s too. I was just pointing out that the court of popular opinion has no more jurisdiction in one case than in the other.
You know what? I can’t be bothered. I’ve linked to the findings several times in the past. I think we have passed the point where this is a worthwhile request to respond to.
Regards,
Shodan
A civil case, not a criminal one. But who cares about such trivialities as facts - he got sued, therefore he was guilty! :rolleyes:
No, he wasn’t.
A. The House files the “charges” in an impeachment, it does not make findings, and B. Impeachment has fuck-all to do with the legal system. If you don’t know that by now, you have no excuse.
If the facts get in the way of your feeling self-righteous, the hell with 'em, right, guys? Sheesh.
Boy, what a night for splitting hairs and dancing on the head of a pin. What’s the meaning of “is”, guys?
Just for the record, let’s hear the flip side. How is it that a U.S. president, regardless of the politics involved, finds himself in the extraordinary position of having himself fined and disbarred by both his own home state’s supreme court and the U.S. Supreme Court itself, yet he is totally innocent of wrongdoing?
I have heard no claims of innocence coming from Clinton himself; I have heard of no action being brought to clear his name; I have heard from no one that these two courts–full of expert lawyers–have erred egregiously in penalizing Clinton for his transgressions before the grand jury; in fact, I’ve heard nothing anywhere except here (big surprise there, I might add) to the effect that Clinton was blameless as to these charges.
Now, to take a cue from Shodan, I’m done with this silly hair-splitting. You want to pretend that it hasn’t been proven that Clinton committed perjury, have at it. Just remember, those in the know, know otherwise.
When come back, bring facts.
Could you provide an example, please? When I did a board search, the closest thing I could find was this June 2004 post where you linked to an article about Ken Starr’s testimony accusing Clinton.
But I didn’t spot any post where you actually provided cites to evidence of the sort that spoke- was requesting. Of course, doing a search on “Shodan” and “Clinton” generates a lot of hits, and I may just have missed it.
Hey, I’m perfectly willing to believe that it’s been proven that Clinton committed perjury. It’s just that in order to believe it I’d like to see, you know, the proof. So far, all we’ve got seem to be comments on the order of “Oh, of course it’s been proven, everybody knows it’s true, shut up and go away”.
You can probably find it in the dictionary next to the definition of what a WMD is.