 |
|
|
|||||
| « Previous thread | Next thread » |
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:51:44 GMT, Vandar
<v...@y...com> wrote:
>> A federal law supercedes state law.
>
>Minimum wage and the death penalty say "hi".
Not relevant
You're still trying to obfuscate the fact that Clinton
didn't lie or commit perjury
The word games ain't getting it
It's years after the fact, Clinton was acquitted,
Conservatives made to look like the subversive
innefectual sham moralists they are, Clinton is now a
multimillionaire and youre STILL trying to promote a
failed argument
>There you go again with the "if he wasn't charged, it must not have
>happened".
He wasn't charged because no crime was committed.
>Which one do you think isn't a crime, a violation, misdemeanor, or felony?
Word games again
A misdemeanor is an insignificant crime with limiting
gravity
Trying to associate it with a felony is simply
preposturous.
>It's a misdemeanor. Thus the name.
Not so
Misdemeanor simply means a "lesser" felony
>> Clinton wasn't charged because he never committed
>> perjury.
>
>That's what you've been claiming.
Because it's true
>> But no testimony (under oath) qualified under the
>> parameters of the US Code relating to "perjury"
>
>Except for his false deposition in the Jones case.
Wasn't a false declaration when given
It became a "false" declaration as an adjunct to a
settlement after he WON the suit
If denying a NEW and UNIQUE legal definition was
'perjurous", Wright would have ruled at the time.
The denial was a legal truth
>"I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky" is an EXACT quote.
And he didn't as defined by Jones attorney
THat is a legal, truthful statement
>Under the definition used in that specific case, he DID have sexual
>relations with Lewinsky.
>Under the definition usually used in society, he DID have sexual
>relations with Lewinsky.
Wrong again
The definition used was NOT the accepted legal
definition
That allowed Clinton to deny it.
The "Definition usually used by SOCIETY" isn't relevant
The ONLY definition relevant is an accepted legal one
>The fact is that there is such a thing a misdemeanor homicide.
And there's no such thing as Clinton committing perjury
>That's what you've been claiming: "He wasn't charged so it must not have
>happened"
You keep insisting that because he denied having
"relations" as defined by Jones attorney's, he lied
He did not.
He had a right to challenge that definition----and did
Judge wright, knowing that he did challenge it (after
she warned Jones attorneys) ruled FOR clinton.
Nothing changed between the time Clinton testified and
Judge Wright ruling in his favor.
>> You (and don't feel bad because the BIG BOYS like Starr
>> didn't either) can't find any "perjury" that he told
>>
>> You only BELIEVE he did
>
>I know he did.
You can't post the lie.
>> False statements only qualify for perjury IF they
>> contain the proper elements.
>> Clintons fib never did.
>
>Yes it did. He knowingly made a false statement in his deposition.
Nope, he didn't
He denied the definition of "Sexual relations" as
defined by Jones attorneys (against Judge Wrights
admonition). That was his right.
Since Most everyone in American KNEW that he and
Lewinsky "did", (including Wright), it is self-evident
that he didn't lie with respect to Jones Definition
>It fits perfectly within the requirements.
Not so
One of the most important things the code requires, is
that the swearer believes his testimony is true
CLinton (as proven) KNEW that he had a legal right to
deny having "sexual relations", making his denial a
legal truth
>Giving a knowingly false statement on a material matter is all it takes.
Wrong again. (you're really not good at this, are you?)
Read the Code requirements again.
>Clinton swore that he didn't have sexual relations with Lewinsky (a
>knowingly false statement under ANY definition of sexual relations)
Not so (again, you're really not sharp on the uptake)
The legal system does not allow the definitions to be
changed at will. Congress passed a SPECIFIC law that
defines "perjury". It cannot be modified and/or
changed at will
The same applies to legal terminology---as in "sexual
relations". Countless cases have set precedent as to
the definition of that term. Each case was
instrumental in arriving at that accepted definition.
Jones NEW and UNIQUE definition allowed a challenge.
it's that simple.
>He committed perjury in the Jones deposition. He said that he never had
>sexual relations with Lewinsky in that deposition, under that definition.
as defined by Jones attorneys
Is there some mental block that doesn't allow you to
comprehend this?
Perhaps you have the "Kurt Knicklas" stupd syndrome?
>>
>> Clinton answered that as "no" because that definition
>> was NOT the legally accepted definition. He had that
>> legal right to do so.
>
>He didn't answer "no" to that, he specifically stated, in his own words:
>"I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky"
He denied Jones definition. His legal right
>It was the legally accepted definition in that case.
Then why did Judge Wright ask Jones attorneys NOT to
use it, advise them Clinton COULD deny it?
>No he didn't. Knowingly giving a false statement is NOT challenging the
>definition, it's perjury.
You don't have a parrot for a pet do you?
>Stop trying to redefine the word to absolve your hero.
Don't have to
He didn't commit any crime
>The right to commit perjury.
When you can find any credible evidence that he did,
let Kenny Starr know
He love to hear it.
>> That was Jones Definition
>
>That's where the perjury happened.
You can't commit perjury when it's a legal right to
defend oneself against a NEW definition of an accepted
legal definition
>> Clinton was not given the LEGALLY ACCEPTED definition
>> of "sexual relations"
>
>He lied under ANY definition.
Not legally
He had a legal right to challenge that definition
>You cannot alter the FACT that he lied no matter what definition was used.
>Lying is not "challenging the definition". It's perjury.
See, there you go again
Trying to insist that accepted legal rules of law be
bent to affect an outcome you want
You're still ignoring Judge Wright shooting your pet
"theory" down
The deposition clearly shows She said Clinton had that
right.
>> Judge Wright admonished Jones
>> attorneys for using a NEW definition---(read the
>> transcript). She stated during that deposition that he
>> (clinton) would then have the RIGHT to challenge it.
>
>Yet he NEVER did.
Are you really stupid, or just acking like a Knicklas?
By denying having "sexual relations" as defined by
Jones attorneys, that is an automatic challenge.
The court didn't challenge Clinton'd denial---it
awarded him the case.
=
>It's perjury, not a "challenge of the definition".
Why because you say so? That's laughable
>Whoever - ......... testify,
> declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony,
>declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is
> true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes
>any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
See, there you go
By denying that definition, he was legally certain that
it was not a lie. That was his right. That's why NO
OIC would prosecute the case.
>...... any material
>>>>> matter which he does not believe to be true;
Sitting with Judge Wright Present he legally denied the
charge because that Definition was not accepted.
Judge Wright Knew he did, and gave him the case
>You're still trying to redefine the word to absolve Clinton.
Absolve him of what?
>Clinton lied knowing full well that it was a lie.
It wasn't a lie
It was a denial of a new definition---and that is
legally permissable.
>It was still a lie.
Then why did't Jones use the accepted definition?
>He was impeached for it.
Not so
Clinton was impeached because he was effectively
kicking your ass and because the entire rightwing
conservative electorate was pissed
>> It cannot be a lie when the definition had not been
>> challenged.
>
>It can be and was.
And that allowed CLinton to LEGALLY deny it.
>"Why" makes all the difference in the world. If the "why" is because he
>thought it was a truthful answer, then it's fine. If the "why" is
>because he was trying to cover his ass (which he was), then it's perjury.
It can only be perjury if he denied the acc epted
definition. Every major legal scholar recognized that
from the day he did.
>No he didn't. Lying is NOT a challenge.
You cannot "lie" by denying a new and unique legal
definition.
>She didn't tell him that he can challenge it by lying i
She said he could LEGALLY deny it. Did you really
think that IF he actually "lied", the court would not
have immediately issued a citation for perjury on the
spot?
You can't be that stupid
That effectively says he was not in jepoardy of lying
under oath.
>If he wanted to challenge it, his attorneys needed to openly challenge
By denying it, he did
The COURT, recognizing the fact he denied the "new and
unique" definition, immediately would have caused
Clinton to be charged. No such thing happened
Therefore, the denial was LEGAL
It was a challenge---that the court accepted and didn't
comment on.
>> Are you now suggesting she was stupid?
>
>Clinton was.
If he was "stupid" why did Jones lose the case, 3 OIC's
fail in their $140 million investigations, a sham
impeachment get laughed out of the Senate, and he
became a multimillionaire?
>> The NEW definition MUST be legally acceptable.
>
>And it was.
Wasn't. Wasn't then, and isn't now
No such definition is ever used today, and certainly
didnt fly then.
>> Apparantly your theory is that anytime any lawyer wants
>> to make up definitions they can.
>
>If they submit a definition of a term to the court for the purpose of a
>given proceeding, then every time that term is used in that case, the
>given definition applies.
BWHAHAHAHAHAH
that's ludicrous.
Every legally accepted definition has an entire history
of precedent behind it.
Are you now suggesting that the US CODE relating to the
requirements of "perjury" can be modified by any lawyer
anytime they chose for their reasons?
>Unless the opposing counsel openly challenges that definition.
By denying the definition, that is a challenge.
Wright said so
Wright took NO action
>You can say "wrong" all you want, I'm still right.
I say you're wrong because you are
Even you have to accept the FACT that NO perjury was
ever proven, no OIC ever prosecuted, no serious legal
scholar denies he had a right to a legal challenge to a
new and unique legal definition, and since the
historical record is entirely against you, both legally
and morally, you simply sound like a broken Knicklas
record.
>> You can't post any lie he told that the US CODE would
>> consider perjury
>
>Already did numerous times:
>"I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky".
And he didn't according to the unaccepted version of
Jones.
>> Your entire theory of his "Crime" is predicated on sham
>> moral grounds.
>
>No it isn't.
>Your definition of perjury is based on who is being accused of it.
Clinton didn't commit perjury.
>> Since he did not commit perjury,
>
>...which he did and was impeached for...
Snicker
Being ACCUSED isn't proof of anything.
>> no serious prosecutor
>> would touch it, the US Senate failed to consider it,
>
>...even though they voted on it..
Exonerated him, remember?
.
>
>> then it's patently apparant you have a knicklas-type
>> syndrome of saying something over and over hoping that
>> eventually it will be true.
>
>Like saying that lying under oath is a legitmate challenge to a given
>definition?
a) He didn't lie
b) it was a legitimate challenge
c) Judge Wright said so.
>> Reagan actually did commit perjury in the pointdexter
>> deposition. The relevancy is that conservatives didn't
>> bat an eye over REAL perjury, yet when a "fib" about
>> sex happened, tney elevated it to "impeachable status"
>
>It was impeachable,
Anything is "impeachable"
Impeachment is an ACCUSATION---in this case a frivilous
attempt to save face
Impeachment is also not required to have a legal
foundation.
Political parties "accuse/impeach" for political
reasons. Johnson wasn't impeached for a legal reason,
neither was Clinton. Both were exonerated because the
accusations were bogus.
>Is it now your position that "Reagan wasn't charged, so Clinton
>shouldn't have been either"?
Reagan wasn't charged because impeachment was never
intended to be a punishment.
>> My focus is on your bleeding asshole. I spent years
>> kicking Knickkkers over this and he went crazy.
>
>You say that like I should care.
I say that because the poor asshole once thought he
could parrot the same mantra over and over and make it
true.
>> You can't post any lie he told relating to
>> Jones/Lewinsky/impeachment that qualifies as Perjury
>> under the US Code.
>
>"I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky"
Is a truthful, legal, denial of a new and unique
definition allowed by Judge Wright
She never told Clinton to not deny it, instead she told
Jones attorneys NOT TO USE THEIR DEFINITION
That should tell even the most seriously challenged
Knicklas clone that they're losing the argument.
>It's an indisputable fact that you know very little about Clinton's
>testimony or the law.
What I need to know is this
1) Wright Awarded Clinton the case
2) Wright told JONES (not Clinton) to not use the
definition
3) Clinton had a right to legally deny a new definition
4) $140 Million provided NO credible evidence of ANY
crime committed by Clinton
5) NO OIC ever considered legal action against Clinton
for anything related to the 1-98 deposition
6) The Senate exonerated Clinton
7) Clinton's popularity soared to 73% during the sham
impeachment
8) He became a MEGA-Millionaire.
>They had a right to define the term however they saw fit for the
>purposes of that case.
Of course they did
And Clinton had the legal right to deny it
>> Bill Bennett was perplexed, Judge Wright was mad,
>> and yet Jones Attorney's insisted that THEIR definition
>> be used.
>
>And it was.
And that's exactly why Clinton didn't lie
You may be "getting it"
>Of course it "will not". The fact remains that lying is NOT a challenge.
Horrible fallacy logic
It isn't an accepted fact he lied
He could only have lied if his denial was given the
ACCEPTED definition
Therefore, no lie, and the denial WAS a "challenge"
Judge Wright agreed.
>> For that we're still laughing at how he mauled you poor
>> fuckwits.
>
>I wasn't trying him, stupid.
>Is childish name calling and references to men's assholes your idea of
>winning an argument?
Dealing with in inveterate parrot who emulates a
Knicklas sphincter allows me that privilge
Too bad he's probably still in rehab
He made dozens of late-night hang-up phone calls to me
(from his home phone)
Too drunk to remember Caller ID
He spent years doing the same thing you're doing
Know why HE Failed and went crazy?
It was because he had no legitimate argument
He just kept parroting the same thing over and
over---despite the public record, the law, and opinion
being against everything he stood for.
>===================================================
===
>The Afghan Mujahadeens are the moral
>equivalent of the Founding Fathers of America."
> -Ronald Reagan
If Clinton were so innocent,
why was he disbarred from the practice of law?
We need only remember Bill Clinton for what he factually did do:
1. Grant Clemency to convicted terrorists who murdered American citizens.
2. Vandalize the White House
3. Dare us to stop him.
4. Trust our adversaries to the point of sending them nuclear blueprints.
5. Find it so intolerable to trust your child with M&M's and SODAs in school
he had them banned, even though he hold no public office.
LIBs blame BOOOSH for everything the Clinton is factually guilty of.
This is Clinton's Bridge to the 21st Century.
Where the guilty are rewarded.
Where the innocent are punished.
Where the mediocre, the unworthy, the depraved are championed
on the basis of their mediocrity, their unworthiness, their depravity.
Thank YOU! Bill Clinton.
For being there at the pinnacle of our civilization to PISS IT ALL AWAY.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:50:57 GMT,
e...@a...revoir.gov (MANFRED the heat seeking
OBOE ) wrote:
>If Clinton were so innocent,
>why was he disbarred from the practice of law?
I seriously doubt if you'd understand the sequence of
events----but here it is again.
1. Clinton sued by Jones using false and bogus claims.
Jones attorneys concoct a NEW definition of "sexual
relations" to "trap" Clinton
2. Clinton responds to the NEW set of definitions of
"sexual relations" in the Jan 1998 deposition by using
his legal right to challenge a NEW definition of a
legal term. Judge Wright pleads with JONES attorneys
not to use a NEW definition (which gave Clinton the
Right to deny)
3) Clinton WINS Civil action---awarded based on Jones
having NO CASE. Judge Wright takes NO action against
Clinton----the legal challenge then stands.
4) Jones appeals, reversed because a JURY needed to
award Clinton the win.
5. Clinton opts to save $3-4 million in legal
litigation fees and settles for pennies. Having
already won, no need to "re-win" and go in debt.
6. In settling, the (legal) Clinton's "denial" is set
aside because "settling" then makes the denial
challenge moot.
7. Only as a function of "Settling" was Judge Wright
FORCED to rule the denial a "lie"
In article Click wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:50:57 GMT,
>e...@a...revoir.gov (MANFRED the heat seeking
>OBOE ) wrote:
>
>>If Clinton were so innocent,
>>why was he disbarred from the practice of law?
>
>I seriously doubt if you'd understand the sequence of
>events----but here it is again.
Yet the fact of the matter remains:
Bill Clinton received a Juris Doctorate from Yale in 1973,
this gives him the right and privilege to practice Law within the US.
Clinton was disbarred from his Arkansas law license for five years
and ordered to pay $25,000 in fines to that state's bar officials.
If he is so innocent, why is that so?
The legal system is constructed such that
it will suffer 9 guilty men to go free in order to avoid
the even possibility of convicting a single innocent man.
If he is so innocent, why is it so?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:37:25 GMT,
e...@a...revoir.gov (MANFRED the heat seeking
OBOE ) wrote:
>In article Click wrote:
>>On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:50:57 GMT,
>>e...@a...revoir.gov (MANFRED the heat seeking
>>OBOE ) wrote:
>>
>>>If Clinton were so innocent,
>>>why was he disbarred from the practice of law?
>>
>>I seriously doubt if you'd understand the sequence of
>>events----but here it is again.
>
>Yet the fact of the matter remains:
>
>Bill Clinton received a Juris Doctorate from Yale in 1973,
>this gives him the right and privilege to practice Law within the US.
>Clinton was disbarred from his Arkansas law license for five years
>and ordered to pay $25,000 in fines to that state's bar officials.
That isn't under argument, stupid
What IS arguable, is the reason why.
he did not lie
He "settled" and that fact alone, not a finding of
fact, was a SELF-IMPOSED act.
>If he is so innocent, why is that so?
Are you suggesting that you cannot be found "guilty" if
you plead guilty to running a stop sign whether you did
or not?
There are thousands every day that pay fines for
speeding and are never proven to have done so.
Paying a $25 fine as opposed to spending thousands to
fight it would seem a bit strange, ODDBALLS
Clinton was fined and license suspended because he
PLEAD guilty----he was never PROVEN guilty.
In article Click wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:37:25 GMT, (MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE ) wrote:
>>In article Click wrote:
>>>On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:50:57 GMT, (MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE ) wrote:
>>>
>>>>If Clinton were so innocent,
>>>>why was he disbarred from the practice of law?
>>>
>>>I seriously doubt if you'd understand the sequence of
>>>events----but here it is again.
>>
>>Yet the fact of the matter remains:
>>
>>Bill Clinton received a Juris Doctorate from Yale in 1973,
>>this gives him the right and privilege to practice Law within the US.
>>Clinton was disbarred from his Arkansas law license for five years
>>and ordered to pay $25,000 in fines to that state's bar officials.
>
>That isn't under argument, stupid
..
In fact, it is,
you've been claiming
that Bill Clinton is as pure as driven snow.
That simply isn't true. He did what he did because he could.
Is such consequence inconsequential?
He admitted as much then, and it is still true now.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
C...@K...com wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:50:57 GMT,
> e...@a...revoir.gov (MANFRED the heat seeking
> OBOE ) wrote:
>
>
>>If Clinton were so innocent,
>>why was he disbarred from the practice of law?
>
>
> I seriously doubt if you'd understand the sequence of
> events----but here it is again.
>
> 1. Clinton sued by Jones using false and bogus claims.
> Jones attorneys concoct a NEW definition of "sexual
> relations" to "trap" Clinton
>
> 2. Clinton responds to the NEW set of definitions of
> "sexual relations" in the Jan 1998 deposition by using
> his legal right to challenge a NEW definition of a
> legal term. Judge Wright pleads with JONES attorneys
> not to use a NEW definition (which gave Clinton the
> Right to deny)
Wrong. You THINK it gave him a right to deny. He thought so too. You're
both wrong. The only difference is that he figured out it was wrong in
1998, while you have yet to figure it out.
"I was trying to protect my family and myself from my selfish stupidity.
I believed that the contorted definition of 'sexual relations' enabled
me to do so." - Bill Clinton
"It was the worst presidential decision I ever made, wrong on the facts,
wrong on the law, wrong on the politics, wrong for the presidency and
the Constitution." - Bill Clinton
"I went on doing my job, and I stonewalled, denying what had happened to
everyone. What I regret the most, other than my conduct, is having
misled all of them." - Bill Clinton
"What I had done with Monica Lewinsky was immoral and foolish. I was
deeply ashamed of it, and I didn't want it to come out." - Bill Clinton
In news:%EVfh.7484$ya1.1361@news02.roc.ny,
Vandar <v...@y...com> wrote:
> "What I had done with Monica Lewinsky was immoral and foolish. I was
> deeply ashamed of it, and I didn't want it to come out." - Bill
> Clinton
But ... "I did NOT have sex with that woman!!" - Bill Clinton
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:31:36 GMT,
e...@a...revoir.gov (MANFRED the heat seeking
OBOE) wrote:
>you've been claiming
>that Bill Clinton is as pure as driven snow.
>That simply isn't true. He did what he did because he could.
"driven snow" was never the issue
THe issue is whether or not someone being smeared has a
right to avail themselves of EVERY legal means
necessary to fight it.
Clinton used an opportunity given him by a rightwing
funded (later proven false) smear campaign in the form
of a NEW legal definition.
He didnt lie----legally
No one then, or now, argues that having an adulterous
affair isn't a moral issue
But a "moral issue" isn't definable as "impeachable"
unless the grounds are true, and the effect is a threat
to this nation.
>Is such consequence inconsequential?
>He admitted as much then, and it is still true now.
The issue WAS (and still is) NOT "consequential"
because it was a LEGAL issue.
Clinton merely availed himself of the opportunity to
challenge a NEW legal definition (one that the
presiding Judge had said he had a right to do)
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:13:47 GMT, Vandar
<v...@y...com> wrote:
>C...@K...com wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:50:57 GMT,
>> e...@a...revoir.gov (MANFRED the heat seeking
>> OBOE ) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If Clinton were so innocent,
>>>why was he disbarred from the practice of law?
>>
>>
>> I seriously doubt if you'd understand the sequence of
>> events----but here it is again.
>>
>> 1. Clinton sued by Jones using false and bogus claims.
>> Jones attorneys concoct a NEW definition of "sexual
>> relations" to "trap" Clinton
>>
>> 2. Clinton responds to the NEW set of definitions of
>> "sexual relations" in the Jan 1998 deposition by using
>> his legal right to challenge a NEW definition of a
>> legal term. Judge Wright pleads with JONES attorneys
>> not to use a NEW definition (which gave Clinton the
>> Right to deny)
>
>Wrong. You THINK it gave him a right to deny.
I know it did
Judge Wright said so at the time
>"I was trying to protect my family and myself from my selfish stupidity.
>I believed that the contorted definition of 'sexual relations' enabled
>me to do so." - Bill Clinton
That is not deposed testimony subject to perjury
charges.
>"What I had done with Monica Lewinsky was immoral and foolish. I was
>deeply ashamed of it, and I didn't want it to come out." - Bill Clinton
"Immorality" has nothing to do with the FACT that
Clinton was entitled to legally deny a NEW Legal
definition.
Judge Wright said so---AT THE TIME OF THE DEPOSITION
Her subsequent action of awarding him summary Judgement
confirms it.
| « Previous thread | Next thread » |
please permit me to PUMP AND DUMP STHK
OT: Flat Tax and Value Tax- Greed and Wealth Transfer
THE ULTIMATE M.I.S. STOCK: AMMD
New 2009 Non-Profit Stock Market Resource
Re: How does high crude oil prices equate to wealth?
Re: How does high crude oil prices equate to wealth?
Re: Investing in India, China, Brazil through the USA
Up