Wow.
Daniel
Airman, do you *really * think Watergate was just about a third-rate burglary? Are you also asserting for us that it isn’t really a crime to steal something that you were going to be given anyway? Talk about selective morality! If that’s the way you think, though, consider the conditions under which Clinton’s alleged perjury occurred - in response to the GOP spite campaign. No GOP spite campaign, no perjury. Isn’t that pretty much equivalent to your “No election loss, no burglary or abuse of power or enemies list or stonewalling” argument? Please.
Ah, well, if only Starr had had a few more years and a few more million dollars, he might have actually found some facts to support what the Mr. Moto’s of the world already “knew” and still “know” to be true. The rest of us just have to remain trapped in “the reality-based community”, though. :rolleyes:
John, don’t you think it’s remarkable that Hyde didn’t just dismiss the notion as absurd? No, he acknowledged that it at least might have been part of the GOP motivations - and, as the committee chairman, he certainly ought to have known what the motivations for its actions were, don’tcha think?
Clinton neither committed perjury, nor “obstructed justice.” I don’t think you know what those terms even mean.
Clinton was censured for “lying” about an immaterial matter in a deposition for a civil lawsuit whicjh was thrown out of court for lack of merit. In order for lying under oath to be perjury, it has to be about a material matter. Clinton was never convicted or or even charged with perjury for the blow job question.
Your “obstruction of justice” accusation is simply a figment of your imagination. Clinton did nothing of the kind.
Just out of scientific curiosity, how much crack do you have to smoke before it’s possible to convince yourself that lying about a blow job is worse than trying to subvert a presidential election?
Yes, Watergate was a third-rate burglary. Yes, Nixon broke the law, but all the same it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that McGovern was going to lose and lose badly no matter what, so the theft was irrelevant to the election, although it was an egregious crime nonetheless.
As far as Clinton goes, that’s been done to death. I will say that had it been me I’d be in jail right now, so don’t try to minimize Clinton’s crimes by saying it was nothing.
You’d be in jail for what?
Do you think anyone goes to jail for lying about blow jobs in civil depositions?
I’m still waiting for someone to demonstrate that Clinton committed any “crimes,” btw.
Surely Airman’s not talking out his ass, and he’ll respond promptly with, let’s say, three examples of people in situations relevantly similar to Clinton’s who did jailtime.
Oh, hell. It’s a Friday. Let’s make it one example.
Daniel
There are thousands of examples. Anyone convicted of perjury would suffice. And perhaps one of you apologists could show me the part where perjury only applies when you want it to, rather than at all times under oath.
It isn’t rocket science, people. For it to be perjury, the person accused of lying under oath has to be accused, tried, and convicted. Words have meaning; in this case, it’s describing a crime. One that WJC might well have been accused of but for which he was never prosecuted. WJC lied, and lied under oath, and is justly criticized for it. He demonstrably has never been convicted of perjury for it.
And the idea that Watergate was purely and simply a third-rate burglary, simply because opinion polls showed that Nixon was likely to win, is purely absurd. It was a concerted conspiracy to subvert the 1972 presidential election.
Of course, the logic here applies to 2000 as well; it doesn’t matter whether people’s votes weren’t counted, because Bush was going to win anyway, right?
For Republicans to play these sorts of shell games and then say that they’re the party of moral values, makes me vomit.
I was brought up not to lie. I was brought up in a country where fair elections were the standard. I was brought up to take responsibility for my actions.
Apparently our political leaders were not. Nor, evidently, were their supporters.
thousands? really.
I’ve worked w/offenders for nearly 30 years, and in that time I"ve seen exactly one criminally prosecuted for perjury. The perjury in question was in a criminal case, and offered under oath in a preliminary exam. (she’d falsely given an alibi for some one accused of a burglery, then the guy copped a plea).
Now, I’ll grant that I don’t see even a small percentage of all the folks out there doing time, but I also look at stats quite a bit, and most folks doing time had crimes like theft, violence, drunk driving, drugs and the like. Ain’t a whole lottta in the “other” categories.
Then just give me one example of a case where someone lied about a small and irrelevant* detail during a civil deposition and served jailtime as a result.
Daniel
- Unless you think the Lewinsky affair would have changed the results of the civil case, in which case you need to present that argument; otherwise his lie was irrelevant.
Were that I were a Republican. No, I’m just a guy that thinks that Clinton was a lying scumbag. You of all people should know better about me.
Ah, so it was only insignificant perjury. That little white lie didn’t count. :rolleyes:
See, that’s why we’ll never agree. A lie is a lie is a lie. You want to be a relativist. It doesn’t work that way.
Here you go, Sparky.
Perjury is not merely lying under oath but lying about something which is germane to the outcome of the case. If that condition is not met, it’s not perjury.
By the way, you also have to prove that the person knew he was lying. If the person believes the statement is true, it’s not a lie. That means if BC really believed that a blow job wasn’t sex, he wasn’t lying. Can you prove for a fact that Clinton thought a blow job was “sex?”
Neither could Ken Starr.
As to the other point, lying in civil depositions, especially divorce cases, is so commonplace and epidemic that it’s almost never prosecuted. If you’re a nobody and you lie about cheating on your wife in a divorce proceeding, it’s very rare that anything’s ever going to happen to you. The courts do not have the time or the resources to try to prosecute every meaningless blow job lie in every friviolous lawsuit.
It’s not “insignificant perjury” because it’s not perjury unless it’s material. Perjury does not mean “lying under oath.”
I would argue that it’s not even provable that Clinton lied at all. Not only because you can’t prove that he believed fellatio to be sex but also because the definition which was given to him was worded in such a way that it seemed to be asking if he had touched her with an intent to gratify her sexually.
It does in the law.
“I’m a giant hamster from the planet Zorkon!”
There. I just lied. And yet the FBI isn’t breaking down my door to arrest me for perjury. I’ll bet you an ice cream cone I’ll serve no jail time at all for that lie.
Know why? Because it didn’t meet the legal definition of perjury. I didn’t say it was insignificant perjury, I said he lied about a small and irrelevant detail. That means it wasn’t perjury at all. That means that if you’d done it, you wouldn’t be in jail. That means your original point was, to be charitable, mistaken.
Daniel
You’re serious. You really don’t know what Nixon was driven out of office for, yet you’re yawping on about it anyway to those of us who lived through that time.
Who else here is feeling more than a little old?
Pal, you’re not on solid ground complaining about relativism in others, especially not if you’re going to dismiss what even you admit was a burglary while condemning what you think is perjury. We know you’re better than that.
That was not directed at you, but at the party of DeLay and Hyde (that’s catchy!), of Frist and a few of our more rabid conservatives, like Marcus Junius 
Nixon didn’t commit any crimes.
Right?
I mean, by the same standard you’re applying to Clinton - a conviction is necessary before it can be said he did it - Nixon didn’t commit any crimes.
In our interminable discussions about this issue in the past five years, I think this statement is the most useful (and defensible): Had Mr. Clinton been tried on the charge of perjury, there was a sufficent record upon which a jury could find him guilty. Of course, a reasonable jury could have also chosen to find him not guilty, and I’m not just talking about nullification; a reasonable jury could have found that all the elements of the crime were not proved.
But if they had, no appellate court would have overturned it due to insufficiency of the evidence.
this presumes that charges would have been filed, right?
and one of the arguments here is that perjury charges based on lies told under oath in a civil action don’t generally get prosecuted. especially those statements that would have had no bearing on the outcome. those of a small and trivial nature.
remember this discussion was prompted by Airmans’ statement that had he done what Clinton did, he’d have gone to jail, ie been prosecuted. he even used the term “thousands” in reference Some of us (including me) are suggesting that statement was wrong. your comments here do not seem to address the issue:
Would (note - not “could”) a prosecuting attorney prosecute some one for lying under oath during a civil proceding?