General Discussion

Major Nikon

(36,843 posts)

60. All perjury is lying under oath

Reply to quadrature (Reply #59)

Mon Jun 1, 2015, 08:32 AM

Jun 2015

All lying under oath isn't perjury.

Clinton was impeached for a blowjob.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

67 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Gingrich, Livingston & Hastert Impeached Clinton for What? [View all] laserhaas May 2015 OP

He was impeached for perjury and lost his Arkansas license to practice law merrily May 2015 #1

Pretending the goal was not to "get em" is not in keeping with facts either. laserhaas May 2015 #2

I didn't pretend shit. I never said they weren't delighted to have grounds to impeach him. merrily May 2015 #4

You are technically correct... Whiskeytide May 2015 #46

Investigating him and impeaching him are two different things. BTW, they did not even investigate merrily May 2015 #49

Sure it was totally correct Major Nikon Jun 2015 #55

He's not technically correct Major Nikon Jun 2015 #54

It was the years of witch hunts that soured many of us madokie May 2015 #3

All the more reason not to have given them grounds. nt merrily May 2015 #5

Hastert just got busted on lying, too. treestar May 2015 #6

You betcha. Hypocrisy here, hypocrisy there. E-I-E-I-O. merrily May 2015 #7

Perjury IS lying under oath horseshoecrab May 2015 #8

No shit, but ordinary lying is not a crime. Perjury is. merrily May 2015 #9

Pres. Clinton = Never Convicted horseshoecrab May 2015 #10

Jebus. Google. The Court that heard the Paula Jones case held him in contempt for merrily May 2015 #11

here's a clue! horseshoecrab May 2015 #12

No, the Jones case was settled because Clinton paid a chunk of cash out of court. merrily May 2015 #15

You have no idea what you're talking about horseshoecrab May 2015 #17

Again, google and read for comprehension. merrily May 2015 #44

the Jones case was dismissed because horseshoecrab May 2015 #18

Absolutely wrong jberryhill May 2015 #42

Clinton pays $850,000. merrily May 2015 #45

Did you read it? jberryhill Jun 2015 #57

Did you read it? ALL of it? The article mentions reinstatement of the trial, saying merrily Jun 2015 #58

You have no idea what you're talking about Major Nikon Jun 2015 #61

articles of impeachment are charges. THEY ARE NOT PROOF OF GUILT horseshoecrab May 2015 #13

STOP Focusing on the impeachment. Two courts of law held him guilty of lying under oath. merrily May 2015 #14

I could have sworn you said "perjury" Major Nikon May 2015 #47

Never once denied I said perjury at first. Desperate much? Still ignoring lying under oath, I see. merrily May 2015 #50

Neither did you ever admit it wasn't perjury Major Nikon Jun 2015 #51

Again, it met all the elements of perjury. I cannot read anyone's mind to tell you why merrily Jun 2015 #52

Sure, Starr just didn't prosecute Clinton for perjury because he wasn't in the mood...or something Major Nikon Jun 2015 #53

Perjury is more than lying under oath Major Nikon May 2015 #20

Thanks for this as well Major Nikon horseshoecrab May 2015 #23

Both the Paula Jones Court and the Arkansas Supreme Court found all 3 of those things. merrily May 2015 #31

They did not Major Nikon May 2015 #40

Stop lying jberryhill May 2015 #43

Yes, it was a witch hunt loyalsister May 2015 #16

No matter what it was, knowing they'd been after him, he sat in front of TV cameras and in merrily May 2015 #21

Wrong Major Nikon May 2015 #19

Thank you Major Nikon! n/t horseshoecrab May 2015 #22

You can thank him for coming to your aid, but he's wrong. merrily May 2015 #27

Perhaps Major Nikon May 2015 #32

Actually I answered it many times over. And disproved your claims merrily May 2015 #37

You answered it once and it was completely hilarious Major Nikon May 2015 #39

The court found that he had lied to the court while under oath. There is no question of that. merrily May 2015 #24

So if it were perjury, why wasn't he ever criminally prosecuted for it? Major Nikon May 2015 #25

OMG, you're back about five posts ago. I haven't used the word perjury since then. merrily May 2015 #26

Your refusal to answer the question speaks volumes, BTW Major Nikon May 2015 #28

Um, no you got answers and links. Your trumped up story was the only fart and splutter in the merrily May 2015 #29

Ah yes, a clever repackaging of the tired old, "I'm rubber, you're glue" Major Nikon May 2015 #30

All three elements you described above were met. So held both the Paula Jones court merrily May 2015 #33

So your argument is that Starr didn't prosecute Clinton for perjury because he exercised discretion Major Nikon May 2015 #35

Again, read for comprehension. You got all the info any reasonable person merrily May 2015 #36

Sure he was completely guilty of perjury, but curiously was never so much as indicted Major Nikon May 2015 #38

To justify the never ending perpetually expanding expensive witch hunt they had against him Johonny May 2015 #34

Clintons approval ratings during the impeachment were higher than St. Ronnie's ever were Major Nikon May 2015 #41

Republicans impeached Clinton for personal financial gain. KentuckyWoman May 2015 #48

Amen.... laserhaas Jun 2015 #56

lying under oath, which is perjury. ...nt quadrature Jun 2015 #59

All perjury is lying under oath Major Nikon Jun 2015 #60

he wasn't forced to answer the q.... that is what bothers me....nt quadrature Jun 2015 #63

He actually was forced to answer them to a Grand Jury Major Nikon Jun 2015 #64

not at all . there was no waterboard or gun pointed at him ...nt quadrature Jun 2015 #65

Sure, if you discount the threat of going to jail for criminal contempt Major Nikon Jun 2015 #66

not at all. he(BC) would have fought it out ... quadrature Jun 2015 #67

Don't forget to lump Henry Hyde in with the hypocrites n/t deutsey Jun 2015 #62