Your capacity of judging has once again outraced your critical thinking skills. What in this discussion leads you to think that nobody gave him a reasonable doubt? Now you’re just assuming things about how people think. Clinton testified that he didn’t have contact with her genitals; but we her have testimony that he brought her to orgasm directly and also through her clothes. Unless you’re saying he stimulated her to orgasm without the intent to arouse. (I would really enjoy seeing someone argue this.) He testified that he did not touch her breasts, she testified that he did that every time she blew him. Do you have doubts about her testimony? If so, please explain them.
I think phony wars are the height of irresponsibility. Accusing someone of a crime that he was accused of in a court of law, with evidence to support it, is not that irresponsible.
Actually, I rather suspect it was a usage error. You were attempting to use a word the meaning of which you had not the slightest clue beyond having seen it before in knee-jerk lefty screeds.
Well, once again, at least I can admit a mistake. No one bashing Clinton here has admitted they were wrong on the Senate verdicts, or addressed why two prosecutors declined to charge, or demonstrated why a direct question on blow jobs was not asked (one person offered that maybe they didn’t know it was blow jobs, but I pointed out Tripp told Jones’ lawyers before the deposition). When you guys don’t answer those points, you concede them.
Before looking it up, I’m using it in the sense of a party functionary doing a rote task.
Now looking it up.
Merriam Webster:
2 : an official blindly devoted to his superiors or organization the Establishment man par excellence, the perfect apparatchik Frank Getlein
Yep, got it right on the button. What were you under the misimpression that it meant, since you have now incorrectly corrected me. (Which is really rude and arrogant, by the way, you should have looked it up before suggesting I didn’t know what it meant to make sure you weren’t making a fool of yourself. Oh.)
Bob, I would humbly suggest that you step away from the thread for a day or two. If you’ve got the liberal and conservative dopers telling you to back down, it’s time to take notice.
Bob, please focus. There’s already one thread down here about you being an ass. Let’s try to stick to your endless wisdom about the impeachment. I’ll ask you for what feels like the fifth time:
“Clinton testified that he didn’t have contact with her genitals; but we her have testimony that he brought her to orgasm directly and also through her clothes. Unless you’re saying he stimulated her to orgasm without the intent to arouse. (I would really enjoy seeing someone argue this.) He testified that he did not touch her breasts, she testified that he did that every time she blew him. Do you have doubts about her testimony? If so, please explain them.” And explain how, given that testimony and commentary, how Clinton’s answers fit the definition given in court, how you know nobody gave him a reasonable doubt, and why these comments are so irresponsible.
Why? Are there only liberal and conservative viewpoints. It’s just another clique. Are you concerned for somebody’s well being? Because if someone is mentally ill and might hurt themselves and I don’t know it I’d be happy to stop. I can assure you that I am fine, but if you seriously know that I am unknowingly yanking the chain of a mentally ill poster who might hurt him/her self or others, just say so and I will stop posting. No need to mention a name and embarass someone.
Marley23, it’s a pretty lame pit thread, but you are welcome to go read it and if a vote matters, many of the folks, if not most, posting there agree with me. Although I’m more than willing to go it alone if I’m right.
As for your point about Monica’s testimony, if you include a cite, I’ll go look at it. In the meantime, I’ve raised several points you still haven’t addressed:
No one bashing Clinton here has admitted they were wrong on the Senate verdicts, or addressed why two prosecutors declined to charge, or demonstrated why a direct question on blow jobs was not asked (one person offered that maybe they didn’t know it was blow jobs, but I pointed out Tripp told Jones’ lawyers before the deposition). When you guys don’t answer those points, you concede them.
If you hadn’t already proved you’re a dope with selective memory, this would be astonishing. I quoted some of her testimony, and Bricker quoted even more of it. It was only a page ago. Go fucking read it. How can you muster the nerve to accuse people of not responding to things when your reading is this careless?
I am not bashing Clinton. Whichever thing you’re talking about, I did say that what I read about impeachment indicated Bricker is wrong, and I’ve repeatedly acknowledged that Clinton was not convicted by the Senate even though I never said he was. (Nor did anyone else.)
I was the one who said maybe they didn’t know about the bjs. I’m pretty sure these questions, especially the later, are unanswerable. But I get the sense you have an opinion on it, and if so, please share it.
None of our discussion so far has been on the difficulty of meeting the standard of a federal perjury charge, but I’m gathering we have no federal criminal law practitioners here, which I certainly am not.
Even assuming your guys’ argument (and I’m still waiting for the Monica testimony citation and link to the site), unless you are resting on your right to have your own opinion (which you are welcome to do) the fact that prosecutors with a duty did not charge is reasonably interpreted as meaning they did not think they could meet their burden of proof, particularly when they don’t have any other case to deal with that might be more important, which these guys didn’t.
The whole episode was distasteful, but lacked a criminal conviction, much less a charge.