Reply With Quotefor my responce go read post number 1045...I adress the issue of subpeonas being force....Which they are, they have the power of contempt of court behind them.
DeSPURate:
Okay, I skipped many of the posts in this thread...well, because, I wanted to address the original premise.
In fact, President Clinton was only compelled, by subpoena, to appear before the grand jury. His fifth amendment protection against compelled self-incrimination was never revoked. That he chose to lie instead of invoking his fifth amendment protections is where he violated the law.
for my responce go read post number 1045...I adress the issue of subpeonas being force....Which they are, they have the power of contempt of court behind them.
DeSPURado:"I think you are afraid of the debate because you don't know didley squat besides what the plotical pundits tell you to think...You didn't even know what the articles of confederation are...You thought that they were from the civil war." How the **** do you know what I know or don't know? That was a joke which you don't have the intellegence to realize! And if you have to make reference to Manny to back you up, then your ass is showing. Your problem is that you don't realize that anyone who does not agree with you is not ignorant. On the contrary, I may be way smarter than you but this is not a contest to see who's is the biggest. Grow up little man and quit underestimating your enemies!
And, again, I agree that his appearance before the grand jury was compelled, under penalty of contempt. However, his testimony was not. He could invoke his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination at any time an answer to a question would place him in jeopardy of doing so.
Yeah it was a joke...Uh huh whatever...Try and pass it off as joke whatever now who is the fool?
linkDespurado: Scott don't let Yonivore off the hook....Ask him why the articles of confederation were dumped in favor of the cons ution....
Hook Dem
Longest Horn
Posts: 1275
(5/21/04 9:52 am)
Reply Re: + So now it's the north against the south? Geezzzzzzzz !!!
Actually he couldn't invole the fifth in his testimony because his testimony wasn't directly implicating him in a crime (the only time you can invole the fifth on the stand as a witness to a crime is when it could be used to incriminate yourself in another crime or somehow implicate you in the crime at hand.) My argument is totally based upon the fact that his testimony was compelled and it was in a case in which he was the accused. That is illegal.
If for instance you can show that he waived that right then I will partially shut up. I still think he was compelled to testify by the pressure put on him to diminish the appearance of hiding something.
Wait a minute, you're losing sight of the fact that he was not accused of a crime but was party to a civil suit. Ms. Jones had a compelling reason to have honest answers to the questions asked.
Lying in that situation has put many people in federal and state prison. Why is it a crime? Because it serves to do just what Clinton did to Paula Jones; deny them due process and proper redress in court.
You're right, he was compelled to answer the questions but, since his answers would not have incriminated him, there was no reason -- other than to deny Ms. Jones her cons utional rights -- to lie.
More de able.
It was a criminal grand jury, not a civil suit. The civil suit came latter and was also dismissed. They don't hold grand juries for civil suits.
Your argument that she had a compelling interest for redress, is a form of presumption of guilt. You are presuming that Clinton had something to answer for...
Actually, DeSPURate, the first instances of perjury were committed during a deposition in a civil suit that wasn't thrown out but, was settled out of court between Ms. Jones and Mr. Clinton for an undisclosed amount and under seal preventing the disclosure of the terms of the settlement.
The second instances of perjury occurred before a federal Grand Jury convened to investigate criminal allegations against President Clinton -- just one of which was that he committed perjury in a deposition in a civil suit brought against him by Paula Jones.
Really, you should know history if you're going to defend the liar in Chief, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton.
Again I already proved that the case was thrown out in the very first post, and that case wasn't what made it to a senate vote. And again my allegation still stands. You can not be forced into testifying against yourself.
You're talking apples and oranges DeSPURate. The two cases, Jones's civil suit and the impeachment, are completely separate legal issues.
Why not just say "Oops," or "My bad?"look your taking a statement that was meant as a general critique of republicans , but whatever its horrible that I falsely accused you of being republican...Sad that you think being a republican might be something to be ashamed of.....But whatever.
Simplicity confounds you.
I don't have the time nor the desire to get into a battle of semantics with you...It merely is a distraction from the issue at hand if you want to discuss those I would be happy to, but I don't feel any more need to apoligize for something that was never intended to be directed towards you personally.
Translation: Facts Suck.I don't have the time nor the desire to get into a battle of semantics with you...It merely is a distraction from the issue at hand if you want to discuss those I would be happy to, but I don't feel any more need to apoligize for something that was never intended to be directed towards you personally.
Given the fact that Clinton isn't president anymore... maybe we should all quit giving a .
Translation GON I don't give a what you think or if your feelings were hurt grow up and stop whining.
DeSPURado:"Translation GON I don't give a what you think or if your feelings were hurt grow up and stop whining." When you get your ass whipped around a little, even you leave the issue don't you?
My problem is that I am trying to discuss the issus, and I can't with this going on...Besides its ruingin my vibe. I'm chilling and watching some SNL best pf Phil Hartman....Right now he is doing a seriously funny impression of Clinton, eating McDonalds and taking food from everyone's plates.
Look GON I seriously meant a generic version of you, which wouldn't even refer to you if you aren't a republican as you so claim. Don't insult my intelligence by thinking I would necessarily equate you with the people who prosecuted Clinton. I don't even think that of Yonivore or Hook Dem. I know you guys had nothing to do with it except maybe a little cheerleading. But really that doesn't matter to me.
Actually Despurado, I've said it before and I'll say it again......I do not blame Clinton for 9/11. I do not blame Bush for 9/11. I blame Al-Quada for it. Is that not the way to look at it? I hold no animosity for Clinton. He will have his place in history and if he was the president right now, I would back him in Iraq because he was the president and not the enemy. I will support whomever is in office against our enemies. Simple!
Oh you can hold animosity towards Clinton personally I hate the bas ...but you guys are so busy attacking him that we kind of have to defend his otherwise decent record as a president....He was arrogant, concieted, and he bretrayed the very women who got him elected. He did ing lie, and he tried to weasal himself out of it.
But again I really can't blame him for it. The you (generic again) republicans put him through was insane. You accused him of murders, Whitewater, filegate, FBIgate, Lewinskigate, Flowersgate, Jonesgate, etc etc. All of which after five years of unhibited infinitely funded investigations got you one blow job. Paula Jones turned out to be lying about half the she said, and the other half was a couple of passes he made at her, I don't remeber what happened with Jennifer Flowers, and Monica was consenual. But I do know that Kenneth Star pretty much ended up clearing Clinton on all of the rest of the charges including those ridiculous murders.
And I mean come on Bush did cocaine, probably had a girlfriend have an abortion when it was still illegal, had a least one DUI, and is dumber than anyone who posts on this board...that would all be forgivable but he has made some horrible desicions.
I would so rather have a blow job seeking prick for a president that made the right decisions about handling terrorism, Iraq, and the economy than a dumb one who didn't. And yes I am calling Bush dumb, you guys hate that PC crap anyways right? Bush is the stupidest person I have ever witnessed on television. And believe me I am including the Olson twins on this one. At least the Olson twins know they are as dumb as dirt, and they don't try to act misunderestimated. They just grope eachother and smile, and smile, and smile.
Ok I take it back I just read the Atheist thread again, and well I have come to the conclusion that well maybe I was wrong to assert Bush is dumber than anyone who posts here. In fact I have come to quite the opposite conclusion. Bush is smarter than MFD. I am profusely sorry for the mix up, and I apoligize for the pain and anguish I might have caused to President Bush and his family. MFD is indeed dumber than you.
That would be wholly unnecessary.Don't insult my intelligence
You know, I guess when someone gets under your skin, it's just the norm to call them dumb. However, I do not think you, NBA Dan, or any of the others are "dumb". I think you hear a different drummer. Thats all!!!! Is it a defense to call your advesaries "dumb"? Let's pull ourselves up out of the mud and either quit insulting each other or quit talking. The only thing we know about each other for sure is the fact that we disagree. We used to insult others on the school yard by saying, "he's dumber than dirt". When it made our followers laugh, we stuck our chest out and considered ourselves as leaders in the neighborhood. But haven't we gotten past that now? Here in the United States we have the right to disagree with some form of dignity. Even Manny tries to be the big man and tells me that I am old and he can take me to school on debating. He is a legend in his own mind and uses that to cloak insecurity issues. I am not impressed! What I'm trying to say is that all of you may indeed be good individuals but do not show those qualities when posting in here. The bottom line is that I am no "dumber" than anyone who posts here.OK?
I never mean to insult your intelligence, Hook, and I can think some of the things you say are dumb but that doesn't make you dumb.
But seriously don't you think its funny that I can't call Guru a republican, and yet he can call me dumb? Strange world yah live in their GON.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions