[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
Since we are going all over the place anyway, in this thread, so might as well ask myvoice, as to why Clinton lied? Does the reason that he lied about an extra-marital affair make any difference in your condemnation of the man? Most man lie about extra-marital affairs. Maybe thats too hard for you to agree since you are a lawyer AND a Bush supporter. Maybe if Clinton pays you enough to represent his side of the story, you will find his reasoning for lying much more credible! :)
[/QUOTE]
Faisal.
When confronted by their wives, children and fireinds, of course, most men deny (lie about) their affair. But, most men don't lie about extra-marital affairs when they are under oath testifying in front of a federal grand jury or during depositions in civil lawsuits. An affair is not a crime. Perjury is a crime. I am particularly offended by Clinton's lies in front of these two bodies under oath because he is a lawyer, like me. I take it that you do know that Clinton was ultimately disbarred for commiting perjury. i.e. He is unfit to practice law. It's pretty ironic that a person who is deemed unfit to practice law (which is viewed by many to be a career practiced by bottom feeders) is yet deemed fit to be President.
If I were paid to defend Clinton, I would represent him to the best of my abilities. That's what lawyers get paid to do. But representing someone is not the same as endorsing their actions.
myvoice, take a breath dude. You are trying too hard. People of your thoughts are minority in this board who can’t win an argument because they would be outnumbered. So sit back and relax.
Well, I, for one, wouldn't call being out-numbered as tentamount to losing the argument. I am more amused at myvoice's (cyber) outrage at Clinton's lies in front of grand jury, whereas I can already envision him taking Seminole's points and crafting them in brilliant lawyer-speek to defend Clinton. But only if had he been paid to do that. Because, naturally, thats what lawyers do.
And that brings us to the point of this thread, as to what, if any, punishments be met to the current administration for lying to the American people. Ofcourse, as an accomplished lawyer, myvoice, will take the position that since those lies were not lies at the time they were spoken, or were not completely discredited for lack of proven evidence, they should be considered unfortunate, but not a crime. Furthermore since deposing Saddam was such a greater good, so ends justify all the means and hence Colin Powel may be a war hero and an absolute gem of an human being, but when he called the current Administration as ****ing crazies', he is a little off-base.
Faisal.
When confronted by their wives, children and fireinds, of course, most men deny (lie about) their affair. But, most men don't lie about extra-marital affairs when they are under oath testifying in front of a federal grand jury or during depositions in civil lawsuits.
[/QUOTE]
But most men aren't targeted for character assassination at any cost either myvoice. Millions of dollars and years later all that they had on Bill was a result of a perjury trap, the man really is bullet proof.
mv is usually in the minority opinion on this board but that doesn’t mean he loses the arguments.
What is still so mind boggling however, is that there is such OUTRAGE that Clinton lied “under oath” which resulted in one stained blue dress. But the misstatements, miscalculations, innaccuracies, bad planning, misleading, mismanagement, mishandling and deceiving that led to the death of thousands, hundreds of billions of dollars and perhaps the future prosperity of our country warrants a re-election. Let’s put Bush under oath! He is either going to lie or the truth will put him out of office.
I appreciate all of you trying to guess what myvoice will say in response to your posts and arguments. But you are mistaken. Therefore, in accord with the standards you apply to Bush and Powell, you are lieing, RIGHT?
Faisal, lieing without being under oath is not perjury and thus not a crime. Clinton committed the crime of perjury because he lied under oath. Even if Bush lied, he did not commit perjury because he did not do so while under oath. Sooooo, while the voters can argue all they want abouit whether GW lied, there simply is no issue involved about whether he committed a crime.
In my mind, all politicians are liars. Always have been and always will be. DEM and GOP alike. But not all politicians commit crimes.
UTD: You've got to have character before it can be assassinated. Speaking the truth about what one does and did is not character assassination. Clinton could have spared the taxpayer several million dollars of the money you're whining about had he simply told the truth during his deposition in the Jones case and then again before the Grand Jury. I could care less that Clinton was doing Monica in the oval office and using the cigar as a sex toy. Apparently, the majority of Americans didn't let that part bother them too much either, including supposed women's rights organizations.
Seminole: Since I don't share your dire outlook on the state of the union or the state of the war on terror, I am still p*ssed at Clinton's conduct. If I got caught doing the same thing he did (i.e. committing perjury), I'd lose my livelihood. He gets a pass and remains like a cult hero to his supporters. Go figure.
ALL: My outrage for Presidents committing crimes while in office isn't limited to Clinton and DEMs either. Nixon was a criminal and I firmly supported his impeachment and was happy to see him resign.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
If I got caught doing the same thing he did (i.e. committing perjury), I'd lose my livelihood. He gets a pass and remains like a cult hero to his supporters. Go figure.
[/QUOTE]
Well, since you so graciously reminded us that Clinton's law license was revoked, so you won't get any punishment greater than his. He changed his livlihood to write books and be a paid speaker. Once found convicted of perjury and de-barred, you can do the same. So worry not. Change is good.
I guess being an attorney (or republican) makes the huge distinction between "under oath" and "to the American public". I happen to think the subject matter (consentual sex vs going war) and the intent (hiding an affair vs futhering the neo con agenda) is more important. As you said mv, all politicians lie, it's only because of the vendetta against Clinton he ever made it in front of a grand jury. Let's put W under oath.
Semi:
Clinton got put in front of a grand jury because he lied under oath at a deposition before that. He had his deposition because of what he did with/to Paula Jones and a lawsuit was filed in which the parties to that lawsuit felt his conduct with Monica Lewinsky was relevant. You can still admire Clinton if you want for allegedly being a good President and still acknowledge that he was a liar, perjurer and a sexual predator. Being a good President and being a sexual predator are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It really cracks me up that people who admire Clinton just refuse to recognize the flaws.
UTD:
Actually, what Clinton did with the cigar does sort of make me like the guy. I bought some Romeo y Juliettas right after the story broke. I just couldn't muster up the nerve to do anything but smoke them though.
Faisal: You are right that Clinton got disbarred for his perjury just as I would if I committed it. However, he didn't go to jail. Maybe I wouldn't either, who knows. My point though is that a President should not, IMO, be subjected to a lesser standard of fitness than a lawyer or many other professions in which you would lose a license for committing the crime of perjury. HECK, in Nevada a used car salesman would lose his license for committing perjury. So what exactly are we doing here??? Is it a good idea to set the qualifications for President below that of a used car salesman?
Well, myvoice, since you are the lawyer here, so I don't need to remind you of the requirements for removing someone from the office of the President. Sure he was impeached through the House, but he was never removed from office through a trial in the Senate. Hence for all the comparisons with used car salesmen, the honorable members of the United States Senate did not deem his 'offence' worthy of removal from office, and let it go. And since Mr Clinton was already in the second term of his presidency so a third term, though delicious, was never on the cards. Thus he was forced to reinvent his livlihood and not rely on the license to practice law.
Now, lets fast forward to 2004, and one mister Bush and his team who never bothered to actually speak the truth, cz naturally they were never asked to do so under oath. Only under the glare of 20 television cameras. Big difference.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
It really cracks me up that people who admire Clinton just refuse to recognize the flaws.
[/QUOTE]
I recognize that Clinton is a womanizer and lied about it. That is a personal character flaw, no doubt. I just do not equate his sexual behavior and lying about it to the fatal flaws of our current president.
I suppose you can still admire Bush for allegedly being a good president and still acknowledge he misled this country into a war that was not planned and has no economic, medical, environmental, trade, energy or international relationship policies to speak of. You can hopefully also acknowledge that the war in Iraq has distracted us from the real war on terror, our homeland security precautions have been a joke, the border with Mexico is wide open, his policies have distanced us from the rest of the world like never before in our history and that he LIED (no, not under oath) about being a Uniter, not a Divider. He is the biggest divider in my lifetime. It doesn't crack me up that people who admire Bush refuse to recognize his flaws because the future of our country depends on whether or not we give him another 4 years to screw us up.
FAISAL
True that the US Senate chose not to convict Clinton. Whether partisan or otherwise, the Senate chose not to view the crime of perjury and lieing to a federal grand jury as a "high crime or misdemeanor."
I think they set a bad precedent for the reasons I have stated. IMO, a President ought to face at least as high a standard of conduct as a used car salesman.
man o man, I was out of office for couple of hours, and when I come back here what I see? This thread is getting stretched like a chewing gum. So many post in such a little time. I started the fire but you guys are doing a good job of spreading it. Keep going guys. I will just sit and enjoy :D
Let’s put Bush under oath! He is either going to lie or the truth will put him out of office.