Skip to main content

View Diary: The anti-Clinton editorial board maelstrom (94 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Did Clinton (none)
    legally commit perjury?

    I've always kinda wondered.

    Let there be sharks - TracieLynn

    by GussieFN on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 03:16:56 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Never proven. (4.00)
      There is an argument that his no contest plea to having his law license revoked in Arkansas constitutes proof, but I'm not sure--I'm not a lawyer.

      But I do know that merely lying under oath, while not a good thing, does not automatically constitute perjury. It must be germaine to the case.

      But what does bother me about all the people in a huff about "the President LIED <gasp, harumph>" is the lack of outrage about the tonnage of lies carried out by his inquisitors. They crafted a web of lies and deceit to try and unseat the duly elected President. This was an attempted coup! They repeatedly concealed their identities and relationships to each other. They used people like Paula Jones to their own ends, then discarded them. They lied incessantly about their intentions and objectives. C'mon, people, give me a big fucking break!

      I'll get upset about Clinton lying under oath when all the people harumphing about it show proportional outrage about the VRWC's lies. Not before.

      •  This is a good point (none)
        and if you want to argue about the Clinton impeachment, this is the most technically sound argument.  Technically in the eyes of the court, Clinton never committed perjury because he was never accused of it in court and it was never proven.  In order ot prove perjury you have to prove intent to lie under oath.  That was never done.  So he's innocent until proven guilty.

        Of course the key is that the act of impeachment is really political and not legal.  All that matters is who's in Congress at the time.  The Congress can look the other way.  The only recourse against that is if the people find it unacceptable that the Congress fails to hold the President accountable, then they must replace their representatives at the next election.

      •  Very good points, (none)
        and thanks for the response.

        But talk me through this: what was Clinton's under-oath lie, exactly?

        Let there be sharks - TracieLynn

        by GussieFN on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 04:01:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  One of them was... (4.00)
          He testified (in the WH Map Room) that he didn't engage in sexual relations with Monica. However, this was under the tortured definition of "sexual relations" his lawyers had laid out. Any reasonable person would say that he had sex with her. But they were parsing words like crazy (which is his right).

          Remember, he was testifying in the Paula Jones case--Monica was tangential. His inquisitors used the Jones allegation to go on a fishing expedition to get him.

          The problem was that his enemies were trapping him in a pincer move--if he used all legal means of defense he was entitled to, then he was parsing words and playing legal games. But if he tried to counter them politically, including confessing anything, they were ready to press any and all legal cases against him.

          They wanted to destroy him and would stop at nothing. Same thing in Congress. Hyde, Delay, Gingrich et al silenced any dissent or voice of reason. The Senate was outraged that the House was dumping this in their laps because it was so thin. Sen. Fred Thompson, R-TN, took one look at the perjury count and said that as a former prosecuter he couldn't vote to convict because it wasn't perjury. It would have been dismissed in any court.

          I'm sure their are lots of people around here who can give you a more precise history and detail of all that went on. This is just what I recall.

          •  Tortured Definitions (none)
            Thanks! For some reason I thought the 'sexual relations' testimony wasn't under oath.

            As far as the definition goes, Merriam-Webster defines 'sexual relations' with a single possibility: 'coitus.'

            Coitus is then definied as "physical union of male and female genitalia accompanied by rhythmic movements usually leading to the ejaculation of semen from the penis into the female reproductive tract."

            A misleading use of the term, perhaps, but not a lie. Forget the jokes about what the definition of 'is' is ...

            Let there be sharks - TracieLynn

            by GussieFN on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 04:57:20 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Clinton fucked up, no doubt about it (none)
            He should have just gone public and said, "Yeah, I fucked her, and she was lovin' it!"  

            Seriously, everyone knew he cheated on Hillary, so why not just admit it and leave the GOP with their powder wet?  His approval would probably jumped another ten points.

            -7.38, -5.90 | " the course of all these thousands of years has man ever acted in accordance with his own interests?" - Fyodor Dostoevsky

            by Subterranean on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 05:05:20 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Vaguely... (none)
      It's never been proven, and the reason it's never been proven is that A. there isn't a court in the nation the Republicans who were after him wouldn't get laughed out of; and B. the method in which he got put under oath was both totally unethical and probably quite illegal.

      In other words, there was no way the Republicans were going to risk an actual criminal trial.

      Instead they went through the congress, where that sort of minutiae could be brushed aside with "BLOWJOB! LYING! IMMORAL! SINFUL! MUST BE IMPEACHED!"

      (all this, of course, is as i understand it.)

      The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

      by Shapeshifter on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 07:43:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site