Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Eagler on January 19, 2001, 12:43:00 PM
-
Why would someone who hasn't done anything (according to billy bob) wrong have to make a deal with the special prosecutor less than 24 hrs before becoming a private citizen?
Heard he has to admit, in writing, he mislead, err lied to, the American people and will lose his lawyer license for five years. If you or I had committed similar crimes, we'd be in jail...Equal justice, I think not.
Personally I was hoping for an indictment then a Bush pardon. Slick willie gets away with another one...
Eagler
-
http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/19/clinton.lewinsky/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/19/clinton.lewinsky/index.html)
I am shocked to learn that he may have "lied". <lol>
I am not shocked to learn how close his admittal is to leaving office, nor am I shocked that this did not come out before last November.
Some people say athletes and entertainers should not be called "role models". Guess that goes for Presidents also.
Fury
-
so this is what 50 some odd million dollars got the republicans ? a retired lawyer is disbared for 5 years for not telling the truth about porking his secretary . no bases to the whole whitewater thing so really just a confirmation of a witchhunt no? have a cigar boys you got nothing h4he.
and paybacks are a squeak
-
so the crook skates again. Does it really make you feel good? sad.
-
Originally posted by -towd_:
so this is what 50 some odd million dollars got the republicans ? a retired lawyer is disbared for 5 years for not telling the truth about porking his secretary . no bases to the whole whitewater thing so really just a confirmation of a witchhunt no? have a cigar boys you got nothing h4he.
and paybacks are a squeak
towd
your best criminals are those who don't get caught, stay one step above the law or legal system in this case.
sorry, I think clinton is a bigger crook/criminal than we may ever know...
Eagler
-
I thinks its BS that they had that big stupid investigation just to see if the pres had gotten a blowjob, whoopty toejam he cheated on his wife, he didnt bang communist china, he got a hummer from a very ugly woman.
-
What part of lieing under oath do you not understand wobble? Un frigging believable that people still dont get it.
Under oath you do not get to pick and choose what is appropriate to answer or not, if the judge allows it you answer.
------------------
Dnil---Skyhawk until I get Dnil back :)
Maj. 900th Bloody Jaguars
Part time aircraft restorer. www.kingwoodcable.com/jheuer (http://www.kingwoodcable.com/jheuer)
-
it is YOU who dont get it,
my point is that why was he put on the stand for cheating on his wife.
-
he wasent after 7 years of wasting our money and we are talkin 50 million plus they had nothing .
so they went for his personal life. and they get to brag about morals at the same time . republicans eat that toejam up.
-
"Some people are more equal than others"
Specially if they hold high office, hold a potentially serious embarrasment to the nation and even worse, make way for Hillary to go to the white house!
If a governor had lied in Congress when under oath im sure they wouldve nailed his balls outside city hall.Slick Willy strikes another home run!
-
Originally posted by -towd_:
he wasent after 7 years of wasting our money and we are talkin 50 million plus they had nothing .
You seem to be fascinating by the 50M figure. The feds are pissing away 3.8 M of our money every minute. The Clinton investigation has cost us... 13 minutes of the fed spending. Well worth it.
-
So, he lied under oath. About what, State secrets? Illegal arms sales? Corrupt business deals? Illegal campaign funding? No, about cheating on his wife. What does that have to do with State security? All that shows me is that he has a problem with marital fidelity.
-
exactly my point leonid, its retarded, but it does say alot when they have to dig that far to find a problem, at least there wasnt something REALLY screwed up.
-
So a lie is ok because it is about cheating on your wife an not state secrets? Good God, I thought people were smarter than that. The last time I checked, a lie under oath is a lie under oath, whether it the question was "Have you ever picked your nose when you are alone?" or "Did you sell that information to Iraq?" Now wonder he had such a high approval rating, there are a lot people out there willing to turn their heads.
If it's not a big deal then why did he get a $25,000 fine. Why did he get a 5 year suspension? Why is he not allowed to seek reimbursement for his legal fees?
Here is the direct quote from the written statement signed by the President of the United States: "....am certain my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false," Clinton said in a written statement released Friday by the White House."
And by the way, before any of you Clinton lovers out there think this is about Monica L. and a blowjob in the Oval Office, please read your facts. Quote: "Clinton's statement dealt only with his sworn testimony in his January 1998 deposition in Paula Jones' sexual harassment lawsuit".
I want to once again point to this link in case anyone cares to read before they spout off. http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/19/clinton.lewinsky/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/19/clinton.lewinsky/index.html)
Fury
-
Originally posted by leonid:
So, he lied under oath. About what, State secrets? Illegal arms sales? Corrupt business deals? Illegal campaign funding? No, about cheating on his wife. What does that have to do with State security? All that shows me is that he has a problem with marital fidelity.
It's about the rule of law. Did you watch the senate trial? There were at least 3 or 4 "witnesses" that had been convicted of purgery in the past and each spent like 5 years in PRISON. In each case the lies were about sex.
If you get caught lieing under oath it does't matter what you lied about. He took an oath to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth and then broke that oath. The whole lewinski thing was to hide the fact that he had lied in the Paula Jones case. Then he lied to a federal grand jury.
What a deal! Sir, admit to all the charges and we won't prosecute you. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif) that sorry bastard cost the country a year and 50 million dollars, do you realy think he did that just to protect his family? He did it to keep his sorry bellybutton in office.
And yesterday on his last day in office (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) he admitted to the whole thing.....
Udie
-
Then this morning he pardons Susan McDugal (sp?). Payback for keeping her trap shut ..
I think he is also able to recoup $8,000,000 of his legal defense fees.See link below:
www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2001/1/19/184038 (http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2001/1/19/184038)
truly amazing (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
only in America
Eagler
-
You Republican facists amaze me!
To lie under oath is wrong and he should have been penalized for doing it.
What amazes me even more is the republican brown shirts wasted several years and millions of dollars of tax payers money.
Its no ones business if bubba was getting head in the oval office,Kenneth Starr should be hung by his nuts until dead! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
-
How does the fact that Clinton engaged in a consentual sexual relationship with someone other than his wife show him to be at all given to making unwanted sexual advances towards women? He shouldn't have lied about Monica Lewinsky in the Paula Jones case, but it also shouldn't have ever been brought up. One's consentual sexual past has no relevancy in a matter of non-consentual sexual advancements.
The only purpose for bringing up such things in a trial is to try to embarass the accused into a settlement. Marv Albert was another example of this. He was accused of sexual assault by a woman he had a consentual affair with for years. The only evidence they had were bite marks and a parade of depositioned former sex partners that were forced to tell the world what Marv's sexual kinks were.
The fact that Marv liked dressing up like a woman, or liked having threesomes with a guy and another woman in no way show him any more or less apt to have sexually assaulted his accuser. But it damn sure publicly humiliated him, threatened his career, and ultimately got him to pay her a bunch of money to end it.
Bill Clinton's two terms were just a string of similiar investigations, allegations and tactics perpetuated by his adversaries. That the only thing they found him guilty of was perjury regarding what should be a private matter goes a long way to making me believe that this was nothing but an 8-year-long smear campaign. If they had been able to prove some of the more serious (and yes, you do have to consider degrees here. Even the law does it. i.e. capital murder, murder in the 3rd degree, etc...) allegations against him, then I might feel differently.
As it is, I can't believe that Kenneth Star and the Republican party were ever concerned with justice or the rule of law given their conduct in this mess. Hell, they bent and stretched the law whenever they felt like it. I am still trying to figure out what Clinton's testimony in a sexual harassment case has to do with whether or not he knew that the McDougal's hadn't paid back a federal loan.
No, it wasn't about anything so noble. It was about undermining a presidency. To either destroy the public's confidence in Bill Clinton to such an extent as to make him unable to influence the direction of the country, or to make him resign outright. I am damn glad they failed for the most part. And I would feel the same way if the shoe was on the other foot.
Anyway, that is why I can only feel so disappointed in Bill Clinton for his perjury. The other side earned so much more of it.
-
I do think if it was a Republican president given the same evidence and circumstances, he'd been found guilty and run out of office. The media would have given its helping hand to rile the sheep up just as they helped sugar coat the billie bob's situation.
The man did not have the "character" to be President. He proved this over and over again. Bye, bye billie....
Eagler
-
you got a long 4 years ahead.
-
Cmon admit it. He got to be president because he was the best liar of the bunch (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif).
-
It wasnt Clinton that invented "dont ask dont tell.."
It was the republicans..
-
ok someone sue me. When asked a question important to your case I will lie. Lets see how you would feel. Do you think you would have received justice? What makes it any different because he is the president, he is not above the law.
The lefties seem to think not about principle here, oh its just a little lie about sex. When it is nothing of the sort. True differences in beliefs. I dont call um republicans and democrats any more, its conservative and liberal.
Amazing, that people can so easily look past it.
------------------
Dnil---Skyhawk until I get Dnil back :)
Maj. 900th Bloody Jaguars
Part time aircraft restorer. www.kingwoodcable.com/jheuer (http://www.kingwoodcable.com/jheuer)
-
It's almost like I'm reading here that it is ok for the President of the United States to lie under oath because the Republicans should not have brought it up in the first place.
Yea, that right. A lie under oath is ok because a) it was only about sex and b) the Republicans should not have brought it up in the first place.
Let's admit that the Republicans did go on a witch hunt. Let's admit that they wasted a lot of money. Let's admit that is was about character assassination. Let's admit that Mr. Clintons sexual roving is none of out business.
Ok now that all of that is admitted, was it still ok for the President of the United States to lie under oath? Or was he still justified to lie because it was nobody's business.
Fury
-
Nope, of course not. My post never stated that he was correct in lying under oath. Clinton's perjury angered and disappointed me, but not so much as the actions of an opposition party that would go to the extent that the Republicans (conservatives, whatever) did in their attempts to destroy Bill Clinton. And it isn't just the liberals who felt that way. Most of America didn't think he should be impeached and thought that it was carried way too far according to every poll I saw. Oh, unless it is that biased liberal media trying to mislead us again!
For me, it comes down to a simple question: What was more damaging to the country? The fact that Bill Clinton broke the law in lying under oath about an affair that had no relevance to the case against him? Or that a group manipulated the law as much as they could to try to run a duly elected President out of office -- irregardless of the will of the people that elected him? Sorry, legal or not, the latter is the far more heinous act of the two for me.
-
a group manipulated the law as much as they could to try to run a duly elected President out of office -- irregardless of the will of the people that elected him? Sorry, legal or not, the latter is the far more heinous act of the two for me.
EXACTLY-I think all Americans should me mad as hell about this! These amazinhunks squandered time and resources better spent on something productive,everyone of the persons involved should be held accountable and punished accordingly.
EDIT:
Do you think you would have received justice?
The U.S. court system isn't about justice Dnil,its in place for dispute resolution.
The carrion feeding lawyers wouldn't be able to survive if it was geared towards justice.
[This message has been edited by jihad (edited 01-21-2001).]
-
Originally posted by jihad:
a group manipulated the law as much as they could to try to run a duly elected President out of office -- irregardless of the will of the people that elected him? Sorry, legal or not, the latter is the far more heinous act of the two for me.
EXACTLY-I think all Americans should me mad as hell about this! These amazinhunks squandered time and resources better spent on something productive,everyone of the persons involved should be held accountable and punished accordingly.
EDIT:
Do you think you would have received justice?
The U.S. court system isn't about justice Dnil,its in place for dispute resolution.
The carrion feeding lawyers wouldn't be able to survive if it was geared towards justice.
[This message has been edited by jihad (edited 01-21-2001).]
I honestly think thats how most of the rest of the world sees it too. And likly how history will see it.
-
ok got ya, its ok to lie under oath, ill remember that if i am ever sued.
------------------
Dnil---Skyhawk until I get Dnil back :)
Maj. 900th Bloody Jaguars
Part time aircraft restorer. www.kingwoodcable.com/jheuer (http://www.kingwoodcable.com/jheuer)
-
Sometime in the early 60's, during a discussion of going to court to get justice, I was informed by a rather high ranking US Federal judge that the United States "do NOT have courts of justice, they have courts of Law, and you need to understand the difference."
Just information if anyone cares.
------------------
OhNooo
smile awhile
-
so by law ya cant lie under oath correct?
------------------
Dnil---Skyhawk until I get Dnil back :)
Maj. 900th Bloody Jaguars
Part time aircraft restorer. www.kingwoodcable.com/jheuer (http://www.kingwoodcable.com/jheuer)
-
Actually, lying under oath simply requires one of two events to make it "legal??" ... A deal making one immune to prosecution ... or an attorney who can convince the jury that that's not what you said ("It depends on what you mean by is") (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
In the same discussion, I was informed that an attorneys job is to use the law to the best benefit of his client, truth has nothing to do with the law. The law is simply a mechanism we use to "attempt" to arrive at the truth. (sic)
Quite a education for a know it all 20 year old from the sticks. I have never quite trusted our (U.S. of A.'s) legal system since.
------------------
OhNooo
smile awhile
-
The man did not have the "character" to be President. He proved this over and over again. Bye, bye billie....
Sorry, I missed that Eagler and wanted to respond to it.
That is one man's view, and one not shared by most of America in either of the elections or during the impeachment. I believe your statement to be the prevailing attitude in most of the people that tried to destroy the Clinton presidency, however. I am sure they felt perfectly justified in their actions and that they were doing a service to the country because of it, which may may be the scariest and most disappointing part of it all.
It is the people's responsibility to decide who is fit to be the President of the United States every four years. It isn't the job of an opposition party and their pundits. Simply thinking someone shouldn't be the President isn't justification for overturning an election.
We still live in a country in which our government is of the people, for the people, and by the people. Thank God, and I hope it always stays that way. The moment when a small group of moralists can decide who sits at the head of our government without any regard for the will of the citizenship will be the moment that democracy in this country has died. At that point, you might as well rip up the constitution and use it for toilet paper.
-
Lance
How do you know what the "will of the people" is/was or if the "majority" of the people wanted slick willie to stay in office? Do you base this on the poll info flaunted daily by the media? Polls turn out whatever way you want them to depending on the circumstances on which they are given and what audience is targeted. But please, keep believing the talking heads, they would not lead you astray. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Eagler
-
:::chuckles::: Partially. Partially on the actions of the conservatives who sought to overturn an election and pulled up short. If the majority of America wanted that never-shoulda-been-President slick Willie hung up by the balls and run outta Washington, what stopped it from happening? The benevolence of the Republican party?
If you are interested in being taken seriously, you should wean yourself from this "polls are fixed, biased liberal media" security blanket that some conservatives cling to whenever reality gets difficult to accept (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) If you want to change a rational person's opinion about it, you'll have to come up with more evidence than "This didn't agree with me so it must be biased!" As for putting faith in the talking heads, the only people I hear frothing about the biased liberal media are the conservative talking heads and the people that tune in to them. Which are also the only people I know who felt like Bill Clinton should have been run out of office. Hmm, I see a pattern developing here.
Whether you want to delude yourself into thinking that America really believed Bill Clinton should have been impeached or not is your business. What you can't deny is that America elected Bill Clinton. Twice. You can't ignore those polls, Eagler, though I'll be dammed if some of those conservatives of good character and unquestionable probity didn't try to put their own brand of bias on them in trying to overturn them altogether.
-
Lance are you trying to say you belive all the polls you see?
I don't belive ANY poll I see unless I know how many they polled and from what area they polled from.
I can do a poll (as CNN does) from New York or LA and only poll 100 people and get that Bill Clinton was the best president ever but if I go to Indianapolis or hell even my own home town of Bedford I would get that he is the worst president ever. So which poll is correct? Each side has their reasons for thinking their way so who is right and who is wrong?
Most TV stations are biased one way or the other no matter if you belive it or not.
I personally think Clinton should have been impeached for lying under oath.
It really doesn't matter to me that he had sex in the White house but the fact he lied under oath to try and cover up his affair so it couldn't be used against him in another trial was wrong.
The man sexually harassed Paula Jones then was caught screwing around with Monica and when that was going to be used in the Paula Jones case he lied. THAT is why they went after him not because he had an affair but because he lied to try and get away with the harassment.
This may be partially political but yeesh come on the man did lie multiple time in court and spent OUR tax dollars defending those lies and you guys are pissed at the people who were trying to prove he lied?
Why is he different than anyone else? If you or I were in court for sexual harassment and we were caught lying about it we would be in jail.
-
Us who has been looking at "the hole mess"
from outside(europe),have had a good laugh,,
no,you overthere has just lost a god president,,,,,,,,,,,,and the new one you got,
well do I really have say what i mean,I dont
want to use harsh language
-
Originally posted by lacy fish:
Us who has been looking at "the hole mess"
from outside(europe),have had a good laugh,,
no,you overthere has just lost a god president..
No lacy, only slick willie thought of himself as a "god president" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Eagler
-
hmmm...
I see there's a lot of people on this board from whom I had better not accept a verbal contract signed with a handshake.
-
Originally posted by Toad:
hmmm...
I see there's a lot of people on this board from whom I had better not accept a verbal contract signed with a handshake.
Toad,
I'd get video and have at least a half dozen witnesses before accepting a contract from some of those posting here. I'd also get money up front and in cash only.
Mav
-
If the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were caught "shtupping" his secretary ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY DURING DUTY HOURS when he was SUPPOSED to be doing...er...General stuff, he'd be gone in a heartbeat. If the secretary was 21 years old, and considered the Chief to be her superior, you can bet the JAG would be making a pretty credible case for sexual harassment, not "consensual sexual activity."
If the General then lied about this under oath, he'd be in Leavenworth, or at least mandatorily retired at reduced rank and in disgrace.
Now, I'm not suggesting we hold the "Commander in Chief" to the same standards we hold his troops to, especially since this particular "commander" is singularly lacking in almost ANY quality possessed by those he "commanded" (read: used for political purposes to further his own self-centered agenda). But surely even the Democrats have SOME standard of behavior that it would be reasonable to expect the freeking PRESIDENT to adhere to? Some standard that includes not having sex in the freeking OVAL OFFICE and then actually OBEYING the laws he's sworn to uphold???
Here's a hint: I kind of expect the President to actually WORK when he's at the office. After all, that's what WE pay him for. Boinking the staff is not what the President does. It's not even what the manager of a McDonalds does.
This was NEVER about "sex." It was about irresponsibility, arrogance, and dishonesty. Not exactly the qualities I look for in a Commander-in-Chief or a Chief Executive either, no matter how much the Democrats wish to lower my standards.
-
Jedi,
I think we're dealing with the new concept that "a man's word is meaningless".
It's a new world, with new standards for honesty and integrity.
I share your "old timer" views, however.
-
I concur, Toad and Jedi. No honor anymore.
I to remember when your word was your bond.
------------------
Dnil---Skyhawk until I get Dnil back :)
Maj. 900th Bloody Jaguars
Part time aircraft restorer. www.kingwoodcable.com/jheuer (http://www.kingwoodcable.com/jheuer)
-
For some of us, "your word" and honor still mean something. A few of us curmudgeons will still behave like that while we are on this rotating ball of dirt.
Mav