Did Clinton lie under oath? (circa 1998)

[Thorgrim]

About Clinton: under the facts presented he didn't meet the requirements of perjury

[7960]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

About Clinton: under the facts presented he didn't meet the requirements of perjury

Sorry, I'm going back to my original statement. He *did* perjure himself to a grand jury, he just wasn't tried for it.

<thorgrim logic>
If a brother murders someone but then has his twin brother claim he did it to fuck up the trial the first brother still murdered someone, he just got away with it.
</logic>

clinton was impeached for:



His not being tried for it is irrelevant.

[Thorgrim]

He didn't perjure himself to the grand jury

[7960]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

He didn't perjure himself to the grand jury

yes, yes he did

when this is the argument of why/how he *didn't* perjure himself, then yes he most certainly did

Perjury about sexual relations from the Paula Jones deposition

the excuse that "touching was included but oral sex was not" is bullshit...it would have been impossible for lewinsky to perform oral sex without *touching* him with her mouth.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

He didn't perjure himself to the grand jury

Amazon.com: Grand Jury Testimony of William Jefferson Clinton: Video: Grand Jury Testimony of Willia

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by 7960

yes, yes he did

when this is the argument of why/how he *didn't* perjure himself, then yes he most certainly did

Perjury about sexual relations from the Paula Jones deposition

the excuse that "touching was included but oral sex was not" is bullshit...it would have been impossible for lewinsky to perform oral sex without *touching* him with her mouth.

Nice website

And I'll quote it:

Given that understanding, the definition clearly does not include oral sex performed on Clinton. Why? Because oral sex is performed with the mouth, and "mouth" is not listed among the other body parts in point 1. Furthermore, a man receiving oral sex is generally considered to be receiving pleasure rather than giving it, and so fails the criterion "to arouse or gratify the sexual desire" of Ms. Lewinsky. Which may make Clinton sexually selfish, but that is not illegal.

Some have argued that Clinton’s interpretation of "person" is wrong, and that makes him guilty of perjury. But his interpretation is reasonable at most, and arguable at least. Even if Clinton did misinterpret the most obvious meaning, it is up to prosecutors to prove that he intended to lie about it rather than he was mistaken, something that is impossible to prove. And in any case, it is up the to the prosecution to agree to definitions that are not ambiguous. The Jones’ lawyers could have easily eliminated any confusion by replacing the term "person" with "deponent and any second party," but they did not. They could have also asked follow-up questions to clarify anything – indeed, they were invited to by Clinton’s lawyers – but they did not. The whole incident is a classic case of prosecutorial incompetence.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Nice website

And I'll quote it:

Given that understanding, the definition clearly does not include oral sex performed on Clinton. Why? Because oral sex is performed with the mouth, and "mouth" is not listed among the other body parts in point 1. Furthermore, a man receiving oral sex is generally considered to be receiving pleasure rather than giving it, and so fails the criterion "to arouse or gratify the sexual desire" of Ms. Lewinsky. Which may make Clinton sexually selfish, but that is not illegal.

Some have argued that Clinton’s interpretation of "person" is wrong, and that makes him guilty of perjury. But his interpretation is reasonable at most, and arguable at least. Even if Clinton did misinterpret the most obvious meaning, it is up to prosecutors to prove that he intended to lie about it rather than he was mistaken, something that is impossible to prove. And in any case, it is up the to the prosecution to agree to definitions that are not ambiguous. The Jones’ lawyers could have easily eliminated any confusion by replacing the term "person" with "deponent and any second party," but they did not. They could have also asked follow-up questions to clarify anything – indeed, they were invited to by Clinton’s lawyers – but they did not. The whole incident is a classic case of prosecutorial incompetence.

President Clinton will leave office free of the prospect of criminal charges after he admitted Friday that he knowingly gave misleading testimony about his affair with Monica Lewinsky in a 1998 lawsuit

CNN.com - Clinton admits misleading testimony, avoids charges in Lewinsky probe - January 19, 2001

[Thorgrim]

Like I said before, he struck a deal to help his wifes career...there are thousands of plea bargains in every city, everyday, millions a week across America, not all of them are made by people who did something wrong

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Like I said before, he struck a deal to help his wifes career...there are thousands of plea bargains in every city, everyday, millions a week across America, not all of them are made by people who did something wrong

millions of plea bargains every week huh?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

millions of plea bargains every week huh?

its called dramatic effect

In Philadelphia alone there are people who handle thousands of plea bargains a year...im talking about individuals not departments

I don't feel like doing the math but if you take that across America its pretty ridiculous how much they do

You'd be surprised how willing people are to pay a 20 dollar fine or 30 days probation as opposed to hiring a lawyer

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Like I said before, he struck a deal to help his wifes career...there are thousands of plea bargains in every city, everyday, millions a week across America, not all of them are made by people who did something wrong

admitting guilt is admitting guilt

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

admitting guilt is admitting guilt

If my wife ran over my neighbor with a car by accident, and when the ambulance came, I said I was in the car driving even though I was inside watching TV, does that mean I ran over the lady?

No, it means I love my wife

Legal decisions are not morality or decisions by God, unless you think judges are God or another all-power entity?

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

its called dramatic effect

In Philadelphia alone there are people who handle thousands of plea bargains a year...im talking about individuals not departments

I don't feel like doing the math but if you take that across America its pretty ridiculous how much they do

You'd be surprised how willing people are to pay a 20 dollar fine or 30 days probation as opposed to hiring a lawyer

Well I could see it if you want to include things like traffic violations I could see the possibility...but in criminal cases? Millions a week? No sir.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

If my wife ran over my neighbor with a car by accident, and when the ambulance came, I said I was in the car driving even though I was inside watching TV, does that mean I ran over the lady?

No, it means I love my wife

Legal decisions are not morality or decisions by God, unless you think judges are God or another all-power entity?

yes it means you were driving the car in the eyes of the law and we are a country of laws

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

yes it means you were driving the car in the eyes of the law and we are a country of laws

in the eyes of the law? haha is this your new life philosophy

so whatever the eyes of the law say, is true, ill remember that next time another Hamdan decision comes down

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Well I could see it if you want to include things like traffic violations I could see the possibility...but in criminal cases? Millions a week? No sir.

fine millions a year, and thats lowballing, now, did every single one of them do something wrong? Or is it possible, just maybe, that one of them wanted to avoid legal hassle?

People settle civil suits to avoid lengthy trials all the time and society calls them smart, a guy pleas 30 days probation because he can't afford anything but a PD who overworked and can't remember his clients name and suddenly he's committed a great sacrilege

sound logic there

[7960]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Like I said before, he struck a deal to help his wifes career...there are thousands of plea bargains in every city, everyday, millions a week across America, not all of them are made by people who did something wrong

And not all of them are innocent, either. I love how you're saying he took a plea to save his wife's career and completely ignoring that it's even more likely that he did it and took a plea to avoid a more harsh punishment.

You say he didn't do it but took a plea "for hillary." I say he did it and took a plea to keep from going to court and looking like even more of an asshole.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by 7960

And not all of them are innocent, either. I love how you're saying he took a plea to save his wife's career and completely ignoring that it's even more likely that he did it and took a plea to avoid a more harsh punishment.

You say he didn't do it but took a plea "for hillary." I say he did it and took a plea to keep from going to court and looking like even more of an asshole.

Considering he didn't meet the requirements of perjury, and could afford the best lawyers in the country...I don't think any reasonable person would think a jury would have convicted him

I think it's illogical to think that he'd rather be the first president in a criminal trial after leaving office with cameras and all...than sign a stupid piece of a paper and act like nothing happened

[7960]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I think it's illogical to think that he'd rather be the first president in a criminal trial after leaving office with cameras and all...than sign a stupid piece of a paper and act like nothing happened

so he did it for him then, and not hillary.

perfect, that's what I thought, too

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by 7960

so he did it for him then, and not hillary.

perfect, that's what I thought, too

hillary and him or him and hillary

who cares

the point was, he didn't perjure himself in his testimony