frep
Established Member
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 6:44:34 GMT -5
Posts: 386
|
Post by frep on Jun 7, 2011 19:12:05 GMT -5
Under the laws of Washington DC at the time of his testimony, oral sex was not legally considered "sexual relations". Thus, Clinton's statement, while untrue by any standard of common sense you wish to use, was perfectly accurate and truthful under the law and thus not perjury at all, despite accusations to the contrary. tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BillClintonI think the point of the thread is that laws usually don't follow common sense....... is that right? Do I win anything?
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Jun 7, 2011 19:17:34 GMT -5
Under the laws of Washington DC at the time of his testimony, oral sex was not legally considered "sexual relations". Thus, Clinton's statement, while untrue by any standard of common sense you wish to use, was perfectly accurate and truthful under the law and thus not perjury at all, despite accusations to the contrary. tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BillClintonI think the point of the thread is that laws usually don't follow common sense....... is that right? Do I win anything? I don't think the laws of DC matter - the White House is a Federal park, Federal property - the laws in effect are Federal laws, not DC laws
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 7, 2011 19:18:21 GMT -5
Some truth in your words, but not the point of the thread. Clinton was a lawyer, and like all lawyers, used the law to his best advantage. He should never have been placed in a position of having to answer such personal questions, which were irrelevant to his job as president.
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 7, 2011 19:19:43 GMT -5
What you think and what "is" may not be one and the same.
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Jun 7, 2011 19:29:51 GMT -5
Some truth in your words, but not the point of the thread. Clinton was a lawyer, and like all lawyers, used the law to his best advantage. He should never have been placed in a position of having to answer such personal questions, which were irrelevant to his job as president. No they actually weren't - Clinton had a history of sexual harassment - as a Federal employee who had repeated sexual harassment training - he brought it on himself. Additionally, like A. Weiner - he put himself in a position where he could have been blackmailed - no one else with a Top Secret Security clearance can get away with what he did and keep their clearance. Clinton may have a lot of great qualities - but he also had some terrible ones. He put himself in that position.
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 7, 2011 19:38:04 GMT -5
Really? I had a top secret clearance and I don't recall personal legal sexual activity being grounds to lose it. Now here is some nasty stuff... Report: Pentagon Didn't Fully Investigate Child Porn AllegationsThe Pentagon is facing criticism after admitting that it failed to thoroughly investigate allegations that employees were viewing child pornography. "These cases were not considered a priority by the Defense Department in the first place, and they should have been,'' Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, told The Boston Globe this week. In 2006, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency came up with a list of more than 5,000 Pentagon employees suspected of viewing child pornography. The Pentagon was asked to review the list, but only checked about two-thirds of the names. Pentagon investigators came up with about 300 defense and intelligence employees who had allegedly looked at explicit images of children on their work or home computers. The investigators left 1,700 names on the list unchecked, defense officials have told Grassley. Downloading child pornography is a federal crime, punishable by prison sentences as long as 20 years. Lawmakers have also raised concerns that it would leave employees at national security agencies vulnerable to blackmail. More: www.aolnews.com/2011/01/05/report-pentagon-didnt-fully-investigate-child-porn-allegations/
|
|
Mad Dawg Wiccan
Administrator
Rest in Peace
Only Bites Whiners
Joined: Jan 12, 2011 20:40:24 GMT -5
Posts: 9,693
|
Post by Mad Dawg Wiccan on Jun 7, 2011 19:40:43 GMT -5
If the Clinton defense had been valid he wouldn't have lost his license to practice law.
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 7, 2011 19:46:13 GMT -5
On January 19, 2001, Clinton's last day as president, he publicly admitted that he gave misleading testimony in the Lewinsky investigation. He faced no criminal charges, but his license to practice law was suspended. Clinton was also ordered to pay a $25,000 fine and admit that he had broken one of the Arkansas Bar's rules of conduct. www.notablebiographies.com/Ch-Co/Clinton-Bill.htmlHis law license was suspended for five years.
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Jun 7, 2011 19:48:29 GMT -5
Really? I had a top secret clearance and I don't recall personal legal sexual activity being grounds to lose it.
I had one too - and anything that would subject a person to blackmail could cause the loss of clearance
|
|
Mad Dawg Wiccan
Administrator
Rest in Peace
Only Bites Whiners
Joined: Jan 12, 2011 20:40:24 GMT -5
Posts: 9,693
|
Post by Mad Dawg Wiccan on Jun 7, 2011 19:51:56 GMT -5
Translation: he lied under oath.
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 7, 2011 19:53:44 GMT -5
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Jun 7, 2011 19:58:12 GMT -5
Today sexual behavior is relevant when it is compulsive, self-destructive, high-risk, or criminal; creates susceptibility to coercion; occurs in public; or shows poor judgment.
Creates susceptibility to coercion, shows poor judgement sounds relevant to me
|
|
|
Post by commentator on Jun 7, 2011 20:02:49 GMT -5
When Clinton was asked "Did you have sexual relations with Monica?" he called a time out and checked the DC statutes for the exact wording on the local law on "sexual relations." DC law said "sexual relations" was intercourse, which Bill and Monica never had. Turns out - legally - Clinton never had "sexual relations" with Monica. He testified honestly and America's media had a field day. You can call Clinton "slick" but the law is the law. www.bartcop.com/Under the laws of Washington DC at the time of his testimony, oral sex was not legally considered "sexual relations". Thus, Clinton's statement, while untrue by any standard of common sense you wish to use, was perfectly accurate and truthful under the law and thus not perjury at all, despite accusations to the contrary. tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BillClintonBeing untruthful while under oath may be a necessary condition for perjury, but it is not sufficient. The lie also has to affect the outcome of the proceedings. Since the question and answer which were posed at a deposition would almost certainly not have been allowed at the related trial, Slick Willy wouldn't have been guilty of perjury even if he had been lying in the narrow legal sense of the word.
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Jun 7, 2011 20:06:05 GMT -5
Since the question and answer which were posed at a deposition would almost certainly not have been allowed at the related trial, Slick Willy wouldn't have been guilty of perjury even if the had been lying.
What related trial?
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 7, 2011 20:45:16 GMT -5
'Clinton Vs. Starr': A 'Definitive' AccountIn December 1997, Starr shut down the Whitewater investigation because of insufficient evidence. A month later, Linda Tripp called Deputy Independent Counsel Jackie Bennett and said she had taped conversions with Monica Lewinsky about an affair with the president. The decision to move from Whitewater to Lewinsky, Gormley says, "altered Ken Starr's legacy as a prosecutor." www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123653000
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Jun 7, 2011 20:48:26 GMT -5
I am aware of no rule or CoC violation with this thread. But since President Clinton's antics with Ms. Lewinsky occurred approximately 16 years ago (1995-1996), and the topic of this thread is decidedly sexual in nature, I am merely inquiring as to the point of the thread given Proboards admonitions about "adult content." Lak rarely post anything that isn't bashing Republicans or trying to apologize for Dems.
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Jun 7, 2011 20:49:12 GMT -5
'Clinton Vs. Starr': A 'Definitive' AccountIn December 1997, Starr shut down the Whitewater investigation because of insufficient evidence. A month later, Linda Tripp called Deputy Independent Counsel Jackie Bennett and said she had taped conversions with Monica Lewinsky about an affair with the president. The decision to move from Whitewater to Lewinsky, Gormley says, "altered Ken Starr's legacy as a prosecutor." www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123653000 That was one perspective - not everyone believes that that is totally accurate.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jun 7, 2011 20:52:48 GMT -5
Did you have sexual relations with Monica?"
No!!! I did NOT have sexual relations with Monica. And don't think I would care to at all....nor would I want to have sexual relations with Paula Jones either. But with Jennifer Flowers probably but not too crazy about her singing in case you might be interested.. if not then what can I say except Monica doesn't do much for my libido
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 7, 2011 20:57:30 GMT -5
I am aware of no rule or CoC violation with this thread. But since President Clinton's antics with Ms. Lewinsky occurred approximately 16 years ago (1995-1996), and the topic of this thread is decidedly sexual in nature, I am merely inquiring as to the point of the thread given Proboards admonitions about "adult content." Considering that a U.S. President was impeached and now we have Weinergate, I think the connection is obvious. Don't you follow any political news? I suggest you get a ruling from moonbeam if the thread bothers you. WeinerGate: The Post-Bill Clinton Modern American Political Sex-Scandal Consequence-o-Meter (dated today)
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Jun 7, 2011 21:01:57 GMT -5
Monica was a moron. Otherwise nothing would have happened. Total hypocritical waste of time. A totally classless Newt/Rush production for the bought off un-American haters...
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Jun 7, 2011 21:05:51 GMT -5
Much like the Wiener virtual bimbos...
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 7, 2011 21:13:13 GMT -5
Mad Dawg Wiccan, I don't appreciate your pornography in my thread.
<Neither did I... so it was removed.... by Molly>
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jun 7, 2011 21:27:06 GMT -5
[ ]Mad Dawg Wiccan, I don't appreciate your pornography in my thread.[/quote][/color] Then why did you start this thread when you knew there would be photos of Bill and Monica At least Mad Dawy Wiccan didn't post the ones that are XXXX rated with Bill & Monica doing their favorite things BTW the pornographic art is not too bad and are those portraits in the Bill Clinton Museum ??
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jun 7, 2011 21:30:57 GMT -5
Shouldn't the question be would you have sexual relations with Monica?
I don't know many men that would answer yes to that one. Most of Clinton's conquests read like a list of the women I'd least like to f***.
|
|
burnsattornincan
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 23:05:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,398
|
Post by burnsattornincan on Jun 7, 2011 21:41:26 GMT -5
That is what the US had become by 1996. The White House, once occupied by great men who had sacrificed and laid the foundation for future generations, was taken over by a cheap, filthy disgrace who had lewd acts performed directly in the presence of these great spirits. What an embarrassment to the integrity of a once great country.
Dalton McGuinty Burns III
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Jun 7, 2011 21:47:02 GMT -5
Bill did not have a record of harassment, he had a record of malicious pub gossip. And you don't care about the difference...
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jun 7, 2011 21:47:49 GMT -5
I don't know many men that would answer yes to that one. Most of Clinton's conquests read like a list of the women I'd least like to f***.
Yea but I read the list and found a few that were not too bad ...not that I would ever fool around of course..
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jun 7, 2011 21:50:33 GMT -5
That is what the US had become by 1996. The White House, once occupied by great men who had sacrificed and laid the foundation for future generations, was taken over by a cheap, filthy disgrace who had lewd acts performed directly in the presence of these great spirits. What an embarrassment to the integrity of a once great country. Dalton McGuinty Burns III Excuse me Mr Burns but you Canadians have had a few swingers in Ottawa...but far be it from me to name names and embarass our Canadian friends
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Jun 7, 2011 21:53:54 GMT -5
Great men like Harding, who did much worse sexually, AND sold out the country? ( Like most other Pubs)
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Jun 7, 2011 22:00:18 GMT -5
Again, this is the USA political circus. Policy doesn't matter to many, just gossip and how good a liar you are. Incredibly dumb, ooops, misled electorate makes the GOP possible... oh, sorry.
|
|