Don’t be ridiculous. Clinton was exonerated by none other than Kenneth Starr of all that crap. That’s why Starr had to result to the blowjob charges.
Funny, I see no conviction for perjury anywhere in this cite. You do knoiw that perjury has a specific legal meaning, do you not? This is a contempt citation, not a perjury conviction. Clinton was, in fact, acquitted of perjury in his his impeachment trial. Civil contempt and criminal perjury are two diffrent things. Consider this a free legal lesson by someone who is not a lawyer.
I have seen no other source besides Drudge for the assertion that Clark ever said any such thing. Do you have a cite that anyone besides Drudge has confirmed this?
Also, Clark’s alleged statement was cryptic and non-specific. It’s a long way from “an intern” to a name and a date and a country in Africa. ALL the slime on the “intern” front came from Drudge and right-wing radio. Rush Limbaugh repeatedly referred to the woman in question as “the suspect” as though she was guilty of a crime.
Can you name a single Democrat who said anything on record about these accusations? (I will not accept Matt Drudge’s word as a cite)
There was no allegation of an affair in the UK story.
Did you turn on the radio that day? Is the radio not a “medium?” Does not right wing radio count as the conervative media?
Wow. If they deny it that proves it’s true? Bush denies he was a deserter so I guess that proves he was one.
[/quote]
If Kerry challenges the media to “prove it” or testifies in front of a federal grand jury that he never slept with this girl, I was wrong. If she stays less than one ocean away from Kerry, I might have been wrong.
[/QUOTE]
No, you were wrong, periopd. The story is bullshit. You don’t have a scrap of evidence that there’s anything to it except for your own fevered fantasies
He has been sued for libel several times, and he lost of big one after he made up some bullshit about Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal beating his wife. For the most part, however, he gets away with it. His page consists mostly of links to other sources, and he can’t be held responsible for what appears on pages actually created by other people. In terms of what Drudge himself writes, it’s usually full of qualifiers such as “Sources say…” or “Reports have it that…”, intended to free him from resonsibility in the unlikely event that the story turns out to be hogwash.
I notice that once the rumor of the Kerry affair with the intern popped up, the questions regarding Bush being AWOL from the Alabama National Guard seemed to die down. A week ago this story was the lead in every newscast and now it has once again disappeared down the memory hole. Some things never change.
If what’s all crap. No one has publicly made any allegation of an affair. Drudge only said that a relationship was being investigated by other new organizations. The girl in question has never made any claim whatever of an affair and nobody has reported otherwise. The UK story specifically said there was no evidence of an affair.
So where is the “defamation?” Name one publication, organization or individual who has ever said that Kerry had sex with that woman. Even Drudge didn’t claim it outright. So who should he sue?
You also seem to have very little idea of how difficult it is to prove libel in this country. It’s almost impossible to prove and it’s almost never worth tyhe effort. But following your own logic:
Why hasn’t the Shrubster sued anyone for saying he was AWOL or that he used to be a coke head? Larry Flynt has a book coming out in which he claims that GeeDubya once paid for an abortion. If Junior doesn’t sue, will that prove it’s true? At least Flynt will have made an actual allegation.
It just kills you that John Kerry is faithful to his wife, doesn’t it?
Isn’t it weird how the Republicans have hounded Democrats with one baseless charge after another (i.e. the Vincent Foster murder case — that was my all-time favorite) and yet their reputations remain intact? And isn’t it just incredibly infuriating that Democrats who have been smeared black and then almost as repeatedly exonnerated are the one’s who are regarded by the news media as being shifty unreliable characters? This is truly twisted, no?
And then they say that the reason Democrats are so angry is because we’ve all suddenly become lunatics.
Still, as the Kerry thing shows, it looks as though the Republicans have pretty much run this one particular tactic into the ground. And the more they try to smear the Democrats now, the more Democrats can call attention to the Republicans apparant lack of stomach for running on their own, frankly abysmal, record.
So, that’s why I’m enjoying this particular non-scandal so very much. It promises to be, for the Republicans, one in a very long series of agonizing duds.
You do knoiw that AWOL a specific legal meaning, do you not?
And I am not aware that Clinton has sued anyone for saying that he gave intentionally false and misleading testimony, so he must be guilty, right?
Please produce a cite that Bush ever used cocaine, or that he was found to be AWOL.
And that Bush once paid for an abortion. Hint: Larry Flynt’s word is worth less than nothing.
Please produce a cite that Kenneth Starr found Clinton to be innocent of lying under oath and obstruction of justice. Or that Clinton was ever charged with receiving a blowjob.
That’s the worst thing about talking about Clinton. Pretty soon his defenders have to be bigger liars than he was.
It isn’t sudden.
Because they aren’t, and it will do you good to find that out.
I find it interesting that no one has bothered to dispute that Kerry is receiving campaign contributions from Chinese spies. I assume that this can now be assumed to be common knowledge and no further cites are required until after November.
Quite so. I might regard that as an incisive point if I had any idea what you mean to derive from that.
Since the concern here is with rumors and innuendo, more properly you should ask if such rumors have been bandied about. Of course they have, so you’d prefer to demand proof that the rumors are true. Nice try, no cigar. Same with the AWOL issue, which has far more substantiation than the alleged drug use, but falls short of conviction. You may march with a banner boasting “He’s Not Indictable!!” if you wish.
Couldn’t care less. Next.
Well, yes but then again, no. Mr. Starr, as I presume you are aware, was brought on board to investigate the Whitewater un-scandals. For which Clinton was entirely exonerated. Which, of course, you know.
Mere insults. Did you come here to argue or blow raspberries?
Go right ahead. It isn’t as though the strengths of your arguments will be affected, such as they are.
So? I haven’t challenged anyone to prove he was acquitted of it.
Hav you actually read what I was responding to? I was making a rebittal to Beagle’s suggestion that Kerry must have had an affair because he has not sued anyone for libel. My point is that the lack of a libel suit doesn’t prove dick. I used the oft cited rumors of Bush’s past transgressions as examples of allegations which were not proven true by the lack of a libel suit. Can you follow that? Do you understand what I’m saying now? You totally misunderstood my post.
Why? All I’m talking about is allegations. You do acknowledge that people have made those allegations, do you not. I was not asserting those things as fact (at least not in the relevant post), only that allegations were made and that Bush didn’t sue. By Beagle’s* logic that makes him guilty. Not by mine.
Irrelevant. Once again, I was only dissecting Beagle’s own logic. He says if people don’t sue for libel, that proves they’re guilty of whatever they’re accused of. I was only asking Beagle if he thought it would prove Flynt right if Bush didn’t sue him. Is all this sinking in now?
Bust since you brought it up. What evidence do you have that Flynt is unreliable. has he published false accusations in the past? Do you have a link? On what basis do you say his word is worthless? Because he publishes dirty magazines? That makes him a liar? Isn’t there a bit of an excluded middle there?
And JFTR, I don’t give two shits if Bush did pay for an abortion. It’s not illegal and it’s not immoral. I don’t care if he paid for ten of them. Fine by me. I’m more concerned about illegal wars and budget deficits.
It wasn’t Starr’s job to find Clinton guilty or innocent, only to investigate and prosecute. He filed no criminal charges against Clinton and his investigation explicitly found no criminal wrongdoing in Whitewater, etc. Congress chose to impeach on the blowjob charges. He was acquitted.
Kenneth Starr never found GWB innocent of being a child molester either. JFTR.
No, you asserted that Bush had been found to be absent without official leave. Now that it has been pointed out that there is no evidence of this, you are weaseling. As is true of practically every sentence you posted subsequently.
What a weaseling sack of bullshit you pitch.
You have stated, here and elsewhere and repeatedly, that Bush is guilty of going AWOL and of being a cocaine addict. Now you are trying to weasel out by (apparently) claiming you didn’t mean what you said.
There is a word for posting stuff you don’t mean, but I am not allowed to use it.
No, it makes you a liar. You do not make an accusation and then try to get others to disprove it. Let’s see the evidence that Bush paid for an abortion, or withdraw the lie.
And JFTR, you’re a liar. If it were ever clear that Bush did commit adultery or pay for an abortion, you and the rest of your side will be screaming it to the heavens. Just as you are now attempting to smear Bush by spreading rumors. Again.
I don’t see your cite that Clinton was impeached for receiving a blow job.
Clinton was impeached for lying under oath in the Monica Lewinsky case. The civil judge in the case found that Clinton had made intentionally false and misleading statements in the Monica Lewinsky case. Clinton’s license to practice law in Arkansas was suspended, and he paid a $25,000 fine as a consequence.
Cites available on request. Keep in mind that it is much easier to dream up a smear than to disprove one, and where the burden of proof lies.
Why don’t we actually examine what the fuck I said:
This was in response to an assertion by Beagle that a failure to sue for libel proved guilt. I was asking if Shrub’s failure to sue over allegations against him made him guilty. Learn how to read, for fuck’s sake. I wasn’t making these allegations myself I was just asking about Bush’s failure to sue for libel, not because I think not suing for libel means anything but because I thought it was an asinine argument to use against Kerry. Why the hell is that so hard to understand?
I never said that Bush had been “found” to be AWOL. That is a lie on your part. I happen to think he was AWOL and there is substantial evidence to back me up but whether he was or not had nothing to do with my point in this thread. N
Elsewhwere, yes, not in this thread. I have no desire to weasel out of anything only to stay on fucking topic. The AWOL stuff has been hashed in adfinitum on this board and you know what the evidence is. Bush has never denied that he was a cokehead and his weaseling qualifications about how long it’s been are as good as a confession in my book.
So you’re a mind reader now? You know what I mean and don’t mean?
I never said that Bush did pay for an abortion, I said that larry Flynt was accusing him of it in a book. How is that a lie? When did I ask anyone to to prove it wasn’t true? Are you just making stuff up out of your ass or what?
There’s that mindreader again. Here’s a newsflash for you. I’ve already said on this board that I don’t care if Bush paid for an abortion (why should? I don’t have a problem with abortion) and that I wouldn’t make a big deal out of it even if it was true. I’ve also said elsewhere that I’m assuming the Flynt story is bullshit until I see some pretty solid evidence.
Us liberals aren’t like you conservatives. We don’t give a shit about private, legal behavior.
Nope, he was impeached for allegedly lying to the grand jury, not for the PJ case. Do you know what he was accused of lying about to the GJ? Whether or not he sucked her titties. I kid you not. He never denied the blowjob in his GJ testimony so that was the best they could do. He was also acquitted. That means he didn’t do it. Innocent until proven guilty, you know.
And if the only pyrrhic victory you can take from this exchange is that Clinton wasn’t formally impeached for a blowjob, well, bully for you. He was impeached for blowjob related program activities.
I can read what you say, and the weaseling in which you engage when you are called on it.
Right here.
So bringing up accusations that you believe to be false is not making a big deal out of it?
Since I know the part where you claim he didn’t do it is specifically contradicted by the findings of the judge in the civil case, to which I linked earlier, I will assume that you simply made the rest of this up out of your own fantasies.
I brought it up as an example of an allegation which Bush had not sued anyone for, not to argue the truth of it.
Which part is a lie? That he hasn’t denied it or my opinion about what that means?
[quote]
You apparently have acquired some inablity to understand context or intention. I’ll explain it again. I raised some common allegations against Bush only as examples of accusations that he has not sued anyone for. The truth of the allegations was irrelevant to my point.
Argghh!! I’m not going to code that whole Flynt exchange. Asking you why you called Flynt a liar is not the equivalent of assuming his book is true. I have no idea and no opinion if his book is true. I’m just asking you what basis you have to say Flynt’s word is worthless. For all I know you may be right. It was a sincere request for information, not a defense of Flynt’s book, which I am in no position to judge.
No it isn’t, not of the accusations themselves. I’ll say it again. **Beagle claimed that if Kerry didn’t sue anyone for libel that the affair allegations must be true. I was asking him if he would assume that Flynt’s book was truie ifBush didn’t sue for libel, not because I think (or care) whether Flynt’s book is true but because I think Beagle’s initial assertion was absurd.
It was two different “lies,” Shodan. Clinton was impeached (and acquitted) for lying to a grand jury. He was cited for contempt for lying in the Paula Jones civil deposition (not to a jury, but to PJ’s lawyers. The grand jury testimony came later). They were two different proceedings and two different charges. BC was never impeached for anything in his civil deposition. The judge in the PJ case did not rule on anything that he was impeached for.
Clinton was acquitted, and therefore not guilty of perjury in his impeachment trial. He was never charged with perjury in the Paula Jones case. Contempt != perjury.
Simply put, Matt Drudge’s ‘goal’ in posting the story was to release a story he knew the mainstream media wouldn’t. And not because there wasn’t enough of a story, but simply because the media is liberal. Same reason he broke the Lewinsky story, because every other media outlet killed it. Journalists decide their own threshold for a story going from rumor to fact. And it is undeniable that if this story had had the same rumor/truth quotient if you will, but been about Bush, it would have been front page news. Wesley Clark corrborated it early on for Christ’s sake.
After it turned out to be all smoke but no fire Drudge gave several examples of the mainstream media’s recklessness with these kinds of stories when they’re about republicans.
:rolleyes: Y’know, there should be something in the FAQ abut not perpetuating the silly “the media has a liberal bias” nonsense.
You’d think four years of watching George W. Bush get treated with kid gloves by the mainstream media would be enough to convince anyone of that, but folks still drag it out when they need an excuse.
Is it possible that mainstream media didn’t report it because it wasn’t flipping true? The l"liberal media" was never shy about reporting every salacious detail of Clinton’s peccadillos. Drudge is responsible for his own slander. Don’t blame the “liberal media” because Matt Drudge posted a false story on his website.
Look, you and I have sparred here before so let’s just say we’re always going to agree to disagree.
But to say that Drudge knowingly made this up out of whole cloth is just plain ignorant. Of course Matt Drudge leans to the right. But this story came about just like any other, the result of a lot of other people’s inuendo, statements, and, ultimately, some misunderstandings. Not some ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’.
But it is also very appropriate that Drudge would want go with a story like this. Do you deny that Matt Drudge alone broke the Monica Lewinsky story? That both Time & Newsweek had the story and decided to sit on it. If not because of a left-wing slant amongst their editors then why?
When was the last time truth got in the way of the mainsteam media reporting a story? :rolleyes: As for the reporting of Clinton’s peccadillos, if memory serves me correctly, Drudge was also the one to break that story.
Now whether the claims made regarding Kerry are true, I don’t know the answer to that yet. Kerry’s simple denial seems to have been sufficient for the mainstream media, but IMHO there are some remaining items that need to be addressed.