My point oh one who has no brain, is that you don’t seem to understand when you’ve lost an argument. You bitch and bitch and bitch and backstep and backstep and try to explain that whatever the hell we may have said was not what you were talking about.
Clinton lied under oath. No matter how many ways you say that he didn’t nor how many times you try and state differently, it’s a fact. He lied.
Get the fuck over it.
And yourself.
Elvis
If writing about it is perverted, then what is watching it? 
Elvisl1ves, I’m sure you realize the argument you are making is precisely the one Clinton tried to use to explain to the Court how he didn’t lie. And I’m sure you realize that the Court rejected that laughable defense, as did almost anybody with a brain in their head.
Rereading my comments in this post, I realize I gave ElvisL1ves too much credit by assuming he has the intellectual capacity of a garden slug. In fact, I’m not sure he is capable of realizing anything.
Lib, you sound jealous. They were consenting adults, right? A libertarian should understand and respect that.
Hamlet, and xploder, now now, boys. You have the original source materials available to you and you may be capable of phrasing your own arguments. Repeating what we already know, that a party with an interest in the case made a ruling otherwise, does not advance the cause here. Yes, I know that’s the argument he made. I also know that Judge Webber let the defendant in a case for which she was responsible get his reputation dragged through the mud before finally dismissing it for complete lack of grounds. She had a personal interest in ruling the way she did, and I don’t necessarily even disagree with most of it despite her refusal to consider the circumstances, but she still couldn’t bring herself to say he had committed perjury, did she?
You guys need to stick with the accusation you’re laying, and make sure your arguments are consistent. If you’re going to use the Webber ruling as a referral to authority, you have to conclude he did not, in fact, commit perjury. That’s your own argument.
I hope you’ve enjoyed yourselves. Now fucken-sie auf, kinder.
Before you go about slandering a federal judge, do you have any citation for you assertion that Judge Webber-Wright had a personal interest or was biased against Clinton? Everything I’ve heard about her is that she is a well-reasoned, fair judge. I’ll wait for you to provide proof otherwise, and if you don’t I’ll expect a retraction. Well, I won’t really expect a retraction from the likes of you, but you get the idea.
Wha…Huh? For those of us not who don’t live in that little world you seem to inhabit, could you explain this to me. I’m having trouble following your logic.
I hope you’ve enjoyed yourselves. Now fucken-sie auf, kinder. **
[/QUOTE]
Elvis
Just to remind you, you called Ken Starr a pervert for writing about Clinton’s act, and my question to you was “If writing about it is perverted, then what is watching it?”
Answering the question doesn’t require you to say anything about how I sound, who consented, or what libertarians respect. Answering the question merely requires a sentence that begins like this: “If writing about it is perverted, then watching it is…”
Now, you finish the sentence.
ELVIS –
I see. So what everyone else in the known universe would consider an affair – having sexual relations with someone – suddenly becomes not an affair because there’s some missing emotional component? Sex isn’t sex; an affair isn’t an affair – I’m telling you, man, you should not have to work this hard. You are taking Clinton’s obvious intellectual dishonesty and making it your own. Why on earth would you want to do that?
You have been pointed to the very transcript citing in which the man lied under oath. You have been pointed to a federal court order by which he was held in contempt – for lying under oath. You have been shown that “lying” includes making false and misleading statements, which he admits he did. I can only show you the evidence; I can’t make you read it.
You asked where he lied under oath. You were shown where he lied under oath. If you prefer to remove your intellect, or your honesty, or both, rather than admit to that, that’s of course your perogative. I just hope you don’t imagine it reflects well on you.
My “hate-filled” mind? As I have said, I don’t hate the man; I find him largely irrelevant. I have no idea why you think your position becomes any more defensible based on my emotional state, anyway.
I have no “hate” to stoke or release. Unlike you, I really don’t care that much about this particular issue, except such obvious and willful intellectual dishonesty such as yours strikes me as really distasteful. And you have singularly failed to show that anything I have said is “bullshit.” The man lied about having a sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky. He lied about it under oath. Virtually every person in this thread, with the exception of you, understands this. The vast majority of Americans understood this. You, apparently, do not. Which is fine by me, of course; I can’t force knowledge into your head. But you asked where he lied under oath and you had the several occasions in which he lied under oath pointed out to you – repeatedly. What more is there to discuss?
So cling to your position, regardless of logic, evidence, or intellect. It matters not to me. You might keep in mind, however, that though you may choose to keep your head up in your own ass, you are not required to keep your head up Clinton’s.
I second Hamlet’s request. What was this personal interest?
**
It seems to me that the issue of whether Clinton committed perjury was not before her. After all, it wasn’t a criminal proceeding.
Lib: “Admittedly, I’m old now, and not as agile with my imagination as I used to be, but I’m not sure how one receives oral sex without making “contact with the genitalia”. Are you positing that the head of his genitalia just sort of floated around the empty space inside Monica’s mouth without ever actually making contact?”
Not to worry, Lib, one doesn’t need a comprehensive familiarity with the Kama Sutra to get this. (Smilie implied).
Clinton had contact with his own genitalia, presumably. As did Monica.
However, Clinton did not have contact with Monica’s genitalia. So we are left with the fact that, according to definition #1 of sex (and noting that definitions #2 and #3 were set aside by the court, as documented in my links (Beagle, take a look), Monica could have sex with Clinton while Clinton was not having sex with Monica.
Odd, but that’s the law for ya.
(Or rather, that’s the law, when the plaintiffs are apparently snoozing during pre-trial deliberations.)
lucwarm
Let me start with the big picture. IMO, Clinton should have been prosecuted for perjury after he left office. It’s not clear to me, however, whether he would have been found guilty. On the basis of what I know, I lack sufficient evidence to move to convict.
More narrowly, #1) I recall reading in the New York Times how the President is more or less constantly monitored while in the Oval Office, and is hence not truly “alone”. So what our ex-pres said was (again) misleading but not false, in the narrow sense.
Now it’s obvious I’m not a lawyer, right? I’m not saying that I find a perjury conviction for Bill C. to be implausible; I’m saying it’s not clear to me what the precise basis of it would be.
“Also, it seems pretty clear that his interrogatory answer was a lie. (Note that interrogatories are, in theory, signed under oath)”
See: I’m not a lawyer (and I don’t know what you’re referring to). Sorry.
Jodi
I don’t deny that Clinton lied to the public about his extramarital sex life. About that, though, I care little: I’m more of a policy sort of guy than a National Enquirer/People Magazine fan.
As for your quoted deposition, it seems to me that "extramarital sexual affair " falls under the rubric of “sexual relations” as defined by the court.
More controversially, I am a tiny bit surprised that we are having this conversation.
If you guys truly believe that Clinton lied under oath, why was he sent down for contempt of court rather than perjury? Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you, or perhaps you guys are intentionally blurring some rather important lines (IMO, of course). Not to be to blunt about it…
Or maybe you’re saying that Clinton “lied” under definition #2 (as in, “Statistics can lie”) but you sort of understand that he didn’t really commit perjury (def. #1). If that’s the case, I would recommend that you use a word other than “lie” (how about, “intentionally mislead”?), since using the word “lie” is somewhat misleading, and you don’t want your honesty impinged upon.
Cross post! I see that lucwarm may have some understanding of why Clinton was nailed for contempt but not perjury. Please elaborate, if you feel like it. Are you saying (for example) that if there was a perjury trial that it would have been a slam-dunk for the prosecution?
Ok, this wasn’t directed at me, but help me out anyway. Give me 2 examples of Clinton’s false statements under oath.*
“Misleading” doesn’t count. (Or that’s my understanding of perjury, which may be incorrect).
I understand that the good judge indeed used the phrase, “false and misleading”, but I haven’t come across any substantiation of the word “false”.
FLOWBARK –
And the fact that the President of the United States would bald-face lie to the public, not once but repeatedly, not “I’m not going to answer that, it’s none of your business,” but lie, implicates no greater policy or political concern to you? I continue to be astonished by statements like this – which is odd, since of course by this point nothing about this should surprise me any more.
Well, that’s interesting. As a matter of fact, however, the term “sexual affair” was not defined with great precision at the deposition, andd therefore the term is to be given its commonly understood definition. Unless you would like to argue that oral sex is not part of a sexual affair?
What “guys” are you talking about in referring to “you guys”? Do you think someone’s over here posting with me? I speak for myself, and only for myself.
He was cited for contempt of court instead of perjury because prosecution for perjury is difficult to do, and therefore rare. The defendant always says “Gee, I misunderstood the question” or “I was mistaken” or “I didn’t think when you asked me if I had any grass on me you meant marijuana, I thought you meant lawn grass.” Prosecution for perjury is a different question than whether reasonable minds can conclude, under the circumstances, that a person lied under oath. The last is a great example of that: Assuming the defendant is a marijuana dealer, we can attribute the lack of a perjury conviction to prosecutorial inexactitude in questioning; meanwhile, you know and I know the grass dealer was lying.
So the question, IMO, isn’t whether the difficulty inherent in proving perjury prevents its prosecution – it often does – but whether the evidence indicates the man lied under oath. And, once again, it certainly does. You are dealing with a lawyer and a Rhodes Scholar who was perfectly aware of what he was being asked, and who lied about it. Repeatedly, and under oath. The federal judge recognized as much, as did the American people.
First, I’m fairly certain I’m not “sort of understanding” any of this; I think I have a pretty good handle on it. Second, the question of whether Clinton committed perjury is a different one than whether it was worthwhile to prosecute him for perjury, or that he would ultimately be convicted of it. And let there be no doubt: IMO, he committed perjury. In any event, and as has been pointed out (repeatedly) a federal judge held that “the record demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the President responded to plaintiff s questions by giving false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process.” The only response to this has been that the judge, like me apparently, is part of the “vast right-wing conspiracy” – you know, one of “us guys.” :rolleyes: Third, I would remind you that a failure to prosecute for any crime, including perjury, does not necessarily constitute an affirmative comment on whether or not the crime was committed; no prosecution != no crime. So the only affirmative statement we have on the matter is that of the federal judge, who held Clinton in contempt for lying under oath.
You are shitting me. You think the use of the word “lie” is “misleading”? He gave “false” – false – “misleading, and evasive answers.” Furthermore, even if I were to say “Gee, he was ‘merely’ intentionally, repeatedly, obstructionistly, misleading,” that falls under the *very definition you posted[/]! How on earth could I be “misleading” by using “lie” to describe an act that YOUR dictionary describes as “a lie”? What fresh semantic hell is this?
He lied under oath. The only way you can argue he did not lie under oath is to engage in semantic gymnastics that are so tortured they are painful to watch, and that IMO call into question either the intellectual honesty or the intelligence, or both, of those making them. I don’t even think the attorneys who broke their backs defending him from perjury charged didn’t really think he did not lie under oath.
And for all the veiled and direct accusations of what a partisan I am – which I’m really not, I care far more about lawyers lying under oath than I do about any political situation, present or past – I really don’t get why this is something you guys are in such deep denial about. Even if Clinton didn’t actually lie under oath, as you assert, he certainly was intentionally misleading and evasive. And he clearly lied, repeatedly and directly, when not under oath. So what’s the position here? “Sure he was intentionally misleading and evasive under oath, and sure, he lied repeatedly when not under oath, but darn it, he didn’t technically lie while under oath!” Even if was to grant you that – which I do not – that’s your defense of the guy?
Hell, I can do better than that off the top of my head: Yes, he lied. But he lied under circumstances that most people would lie under, and while answering questions that he should not have had to answer in the first place. And he was a great president whose personal life should never have been the subject of political maneuverings, and who should never had had to deal with law suits against him personally while in office.
See? It’s perfectly possible to defend the guy without having to check your common sense at the door.
FLOWBARK
Here you go: “Did you have an extramarital sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky?” “No.” “If she told someone that she had a sexual affair with you beginning in November of 1995, would that be a lie?” “That would not be true.”
Those statements are *false. The only way you can pretend they are not false is to assume that the definition for “extramarital affair” was the same as the definition of "sexual relations, an assumption that has no basis in the deposition and fails the general test that words and phrases that are undefined are to be given their generally understood meanings. Unless you’d like to argue that multiiple sexual encounters with a person other than your spouse, including oral sex, do not constitute an extramarital affair as the term is generally understood?
Flowbark
Okay. But why is “genitalia” presumed to be dative rather than genitive? While I’m certainly not a lawyer, I do speak English. The phrase “contact with the genitalia” implies both: [1] Subject has contact with the genitalia of Object" and [2] “Subject’s genitalia has contact with Object”. So, if Clinton put his Bobo in Monica’s mouth, then he made contact with her using his genitalia — thus, “contact with the genitalia”.
Clinton was right to be in contempt of that court – it was the tool of a partisan witch hunt, and deserved nothing more than spitting on. Clinton was able to parse his way out of it – more power to him.
There are a number of Republican judges in this country, including several on the Supreme Court, whom any reasonable person must hold in contempt, because of what they are.
Of course. If anyone disagrees with any lawsuit against them, they should be able to lie under oath. It’s attitudes like this that continue to degrade confidence in the judical system.
Bill Clinton should not be above the law. Nobody should.
Evil Captor
Parsed his way out of it? I think he parsed his way into a couple of fines and disbarments, didn’t he? 
No, what degrades confidence in the judicial system is its prostitution to the needs of Pubbie influence peddlers, prostitution which reaches all the way up to the Supreme Court. If the judicial system wants respect, it has to earn it. It earns LOSS of respect when it becomes a cheap ho bending over for every Pubbie influence group that wants to use it for something.
Well, at least your consistently blinded by partianship. You got that going for you. You advocate a position where Clinton gets to lie through his teeth, under oath, thereby putting him above the law. No amount of disparging the judicial system, ranting against Republicans (which, I wish everyone in the thread would get clear, I most definitely do not support), specious logic, or colorful euphamisms changes that fact.
And no amount of crying “partisan!” will change the fact that the courts have not behaved in ways calculated to engender respect. If they want respect, they must make decisions that are respectable. They have not done so.
I’ll ask you what I asked Elvis, do you have any indication that the Court acted with bias against Clinton or acted in any way inappropriately. I’ll also ask what your rationale is to allow some people, Clinton, to put themselves above the law and allow them to lie under oath.