So, if I say I didn’t have sex with an intern and it turns out I did have sex with an intern, I’m in the clear?
Look, man, I told you, she was a TA.
I believe that you are too stupid to grasp the implication that was made.
Before the Internet, if one was having a discussion, they had to rely on what they had actually knew. Nowadays, one can google, come back hours later, and post a brilliant riposte.
That is why political debates, or any debate, are live.
Um. If one Googles, one must read the results in order to come back to the debate (and one must also understand what one has read, if the riposte is to be brilliant). There is no more or less “actual knowing” involved with reading paper text found in a book or periodical than with electronic text found on the Intarwebs.
I’m sorry, this doesn’t make any sense. Many legitimate debates are carried on in writing rather than speech and have been since writing was an option. Before message boards, text debates were conducted in editorials and letters to editors, broadsides, pamphlets, scholarly journals, etc.
This might come as a shock to you, but a lie is only as important as what is being lied about. If I tell my wife she doesn’t look fat in those pants, that’s not the same as falsely accusing the mailman of raping me.
Prevaricating about a blow job is nowhere near equivalent to lying to start an illegal war. Bush’s lies killed people, Clinton’s parsimonious response to an irrelevant question during a politically motivated civil lawsuit (a suit which was eventually discredited and dismissed for lack of merit).
Lying his way into a war wasn’t Bush’s only impeachable offense, by the way. There’s also the torture, the illegal wiretaps and the outing of Valerie Plame.
Bush knew X was not true.
Bush isn’t president anymore. Can we at least agree that the sites linked to in the op are bs?
From the link in the OP:
I have never hear of “The main Stream Media”.
Do they have a website?
Notwithstanding the Facebook page, which is a little hysterical…
…can anyone tell me whether the "Whereas"es in the Obama impeachment petition – if they *were *true, and I realize that’s a good spot to use the subjunctive mood – are grounds for impeachment? Do they constitute charges of “Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors”?
Mindreader?
I thought he was asked the Monica Lewinsky question in relation to Paula Jones’ sexual harassment lawsuit. Ken Starr picked up on it later, but I believe the question itself was 100% valid, as it involved Clinton’s sexual contact with his employees.
I don’t have to be. There is indisputable evidence that he made claims he knew were not true and that he tampered with the intelligence he showed to Congress.
For example. He absolutely knew for a fact that the yellowcake claim was bullshit and he spewed it at a SOTU Address anyway.
Ken Starr fed the question to the Lewinsky lawyers after it was handed to him during what was supposed to be an investigation of Whitewater. After years of investigation had failed to turn up the slightest wrongdoing in the Whitewater investigation, Starr was actually about to give up until Linda Tripp came along with her phone tapes. The Lewinsky question was then dropped into the PJ deposition deliberately to set a perjury trap (and if Clinton had come clean abut Lewinsky, they would have leaked it to milk any potential political damage. Feeding that question into the Jones deposition was win-win for Starr Inquisition).
My Poli Sci professor said that everyone but Truman and Carter did it. I didn’t ask him for a cite, unfortunately,
I don’t know of anyone who said they weren’t bullshit.
So? Is it or is it not a legitimate question?
Paula Jones was suing Clinton for sexual harassment while she was working as a state employee. It’s clear to me that Clinton’s proclivity to sex up people working for him is a valid topic to ask questions about.
No.
The allegation was harrassment, not sex. Lewinsky never accused Clinton of harrassment. By her own testimony, she was the aggressor.
Incidentally, the judge in the PJ case ruled that even if everything Jones was alleging was true, it still wasn’t harrassment, since, by Jones’ own testimony. Clinton made no attempt at coercion, stopped immediately when she said she wasn’t interested and she never suffered any retaliation or consequences in her job.
OK, if so, then where’s his conviction for Perjury? “Lying under oath” is not a crime, Perjury is. Just like killing someone is not a crime, but Murder is.
A supposed lawyer would know that.:dubious:
How the fuck was anyone supposed to know that Clinton wasn’t the aggressor, if all the testimony about it was a pile of lies? How was Paula Jones supposed to know that the Lewinsky situation wasn’t practically identical to her own, with the exception that Lewinsky was OK with it and PJ wasn’t?
There was never even an allegation that BC had harrassed Lewinsky, so there was no reason to ask the question. Remember, they DID already have Lewinsky’s own description of the affair on tape in which she identified herself as the aggressor. They weren’t guessing as to the nature of the affair. They already knew.