Yeah, but Ironically Reagan may have been tell the truth when he said he didn’t remember. 
Oh, this again. The one was about a BJ, the other about life and death. Yeah sure. On the one hand, the Clinton perjury was about a criminal investigation into rape and harassment which I don’t consider a trivial subject. On the other hand Plame wasn’t exactly James Bond, and it seems likely the mission she sent her husband on was one to undermine the Prez’s position.
Actually I pretty firmly beleive that all this shit is nothing more than the standard fare of political bickering. I thought it with Clinton and Whitewater. I think it now.
Of course, you are free to think differently and beleive that it’s all heinous politicization when your guy is attacked, and it’s all true and merited when your guys are attacking the other guys.
That is, if yo go for that kind of cognitive dissonance.
That’s right!
Perjury about a blowjob is a crime!
Perjury about undercutting intelligence services is a crime!
Therefore they’re equivalent - and everyone should just move on.
You’re so neat.
-Joe
Yes, this again: as long as you keep throwing slowballs, I’ll keep knocking them out. The Clinton perjury was NOT about rape and harassment, even if it was in an investigation into rape and harassment that ultimately bore no fruit. The potential perjury in this case IS about ruining someone’s career and jeopardizing her life and (more likely) the lives of her contacts, and it WAS part of a campaign to distort the record about a war that killed thousands. Even if she sent her husband on a mission to undermine the Prez–even if she equipped him with super-secret ultrasonic rays of boogereateritis–it would be a more horrendous act that the Administration engaged in when it ruined her career, jeopardized her contacts, and promoted a war falsely. If you like to act as if the two are equal, well, you know more about cognitive dissonance than me, but you still can’t identify it.
Incidentally, it’s coming up on the anniversary of that Thanksgiving Crow you ate. You gonna make that a tradition?
Daniel
Well, yes, true. But **LHoD[b/] and Scylla are proving my point. The same excuses are used, ad infinitum. Only the names and locations change. Is there a matter of degree? I believe so, and I believe anyone who pretends otherwise is lying to themselves. There’s a big difference between killing a bunch of sperrm with blue polyester and killing several thousand servicemen and women (can’t just include US casualties; not only US service members have died). To equate the two is just plain silly. They’re both lies; The fact is, one put lives at risk, the other didn’t.
Cite? IIRC, t’was civil, not criminal, and harrasment not rape. the testimony was eventually ruled not relevant, as well.
If you think those answers equate to perjury, you clearly do not have the slightest idea what perjury actually entails. Convicting someone of perjury on a “I don’t recall” type of answer is pretty much impossible.
That’s right, Scylla, treason and oral sex are exactly the same thing, morally speaking. And WE’RE the ones that are blissfully unaware of cognitive dissonance.
… Wait … is that monkeys flying out of my butt again?
Joe Wilson married George Tenet? Holy J. Edgar Hoover!
And yet, do you think you could find anyone who believes that he honestly didn’t remember getting the blowjobs?
I carefully read your citations and I think you are mistaken, and fully so. My understanding was that he got his blow job in the private study, not any of the places mentioned. Oh, and blow job wasn’t asked. Now to the p. 59 cite, he doesn’t deny being alone with her and admits he was when she brought in papers to sign. The lawyer at that page doesn’t ask whether he got a blow job. Sorry, that is fatally incompetent lawyering. Why didn’t he ask the question? “Mr. President, did Ms. Lewinsky ever perform fellatio on you?” If he had denied that, or claimed no recollection, that would be perjury. But they never asked, and he did admit being alone.
And as far as Judge Wright, she apparently had a long standing grudge against Clinton since he lost her final exam paper or some such when he was her law professor.
The question was apparently asked elsewhere, though it may have been asked badly.
ISTM that saying “I didn’t have sex with her” wouldn’t be perjury anyway, because he honestly believed that the words ‘have sex’ specify intercourse.
I always thought that when someone says somebody had sex that meant intercourse and not other sex acts.
He was actually asked about “sexual relations” with some very specific meanings. See byomtoob’s link.
If you want to claim the man perjured and you know he got a blow job, you ask him if he got a blow job, and you do it in one place and do it, “beyond a reasonable doubt” if you take your deposition otherwise, you are deliberately leaving reasonable doubt. The impeachment jury acquited him of this very charge. Not guilty.
The people who accused Clinton of perjury tried him in the Senate and lost, deservedly so. They did not meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Not only did they not get a unanimous jury, they didn’t get half.
Acquited. Get over it and move on. And the charges were bullshit and made to persecute a person, not prosecute a crime.
But, my GOD, man! It was a BLOWJOB!! Oral sex is evil and undermines the American family, don’t you understand?! And he lied about it! Can you imagine? A man lying about his sex life? This was a serious breach of the public trust!
I hope it’s fair to say that there were issues beyond innocence and guilt at play in the impeachment.
Fuck you, you dunce. I don’t even have to get over it, I was never in favor of it. And I said so IN THIS THREAD. WATCH.
I’m still intelligent enough to admit the man did one of two things: lied about getting a blowjob, or pulled some very skilled legal moves in order to not admit doing things that he did. His acquittal in the Senate is irrelevant. Don’t talk nonsense to me, Bob Loblaw.
Get over it cocksucker. Yes, his acquittal does matter, it means he was presumed innocent and found not guilty of perjury. You say you were not in favor of it, and then argue that there was more in play than guilt and innocence? Well, duh!!! That’s the case in virtually every trial, isn’t it?
You say he lied about getting a blowjob? NO HE DIDN"T. Nobody ever asked him under oath and asked the judge to require him to answer whether he got a blowjob. He never answered that question under oath or not.
His acquittal in the only trial he ever got (in the Senate) is irrelevant only to blowjob obsessed dunces. Dunces who deny they are dunces. Dunces like you.
[Seinfeld] Not that there’s anything wrong with that. [/Seinfeld]
And of course the relativism from the left leaps up yet again. If this is a question of perjury, then it’s about the perjury, not the subject matter that was lied about. Blowjob? Treason? Death? Sure, different consequences, but the crime is still the same. This is like saying a DUI shouldn’t stand if someone is weaving. Another drunk may kill someone by plowing into them. In one case there is death, in another no serious damage. They are both treated the same, though, as far as the drunken driving charge. Because the DUI, in and of itself, is a crime. Funny how so many conservatives here aren’t falling all over themselves defending the actions The Cabal, but rather point out the hypocrisy of the left latching on to that which they so vehemtly defended.
Serious question about the Plame case. Was she an undercover agent? I seem to remember her position was more a desk jockey. WRT this case, can anyone break it down to how lives were endangered? On the surface it seems a non-issue, but I’m not clear on her role in the CIA and what she exactly did. Thanks for any clarification.
I still want to know why Clinton’s sexual activity was any business of Ken Starr to begin with.
“Clinton committed perjury” conveniently sidesteps the issue of why the question was asked to begin with. It’s certainly not as if Monica was filing rape charges…