Actual Quotes from OBAMA book

"Mike" wrote in news:eqmsk.717$lf2.208@trnddc07:

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news%lsk.257419$TT4.108517@attbi_s22...
Cheating on Hillary was never the offense. Using the power of his
position to gain sexual favors from an employee *was*. Having sex
was never the offense, despite how desperately the Left has tried
to make it the salient point of the discussion.

You're kidding right? Do you honestly believe Clinton coerced the
chubby intern?

Sure do -- especially since the only other alternative is that she
was attracted to the old man.

Not only was she attracted to him, she was infatuated with him. Your
ignorance of the details is really showing.


Bottom line: Abusing power by coercing sex from/with an employee,
during business hours, on government property, is generally
considered to be illegal, as can be readily proven by the number of
"public servants" who are currently doing time right now for similar
crimes. Therefore -- unless you're suggesting that we hold the
president to a lower standard than we do our mayors or high school
principals -- I think the entire framework of your argument is as
specious as Clinton's claims that he "did not have sex with that
woman."

First of all, what you describe never happened. Lewinsky was never
coerced. If you believe she was, you should better educate yourself as
you are taking ignorance to a fine art form.


Why should he break th ehabits of a lifetime?


Bertie

John Smith wrote in news:jsmith-9F48A0.20462224082008
@nntp.aioe.org:

In article gqlsk.634$Ro1.600@trnddc04, "Mike"
wrote:

Courious how you name two R's but neglected to name John Edwards, the
most recent D?

Again, see above.

I did. I also noticed that you didn't mention Teddy Kennedy, probably
one of the better know "offenders".


I notice that people who take an interest in where other people stick their
jiggly parts are themselves fairly interesting.


Bertie

"Mike" wrote in message
news:Telsk.632$Ro1.589@trnddc04...

Major bull**** snip -

Find a legal reference and do a little research. Perjury is lying under
oath, regardless of it's relevance to a specific crime or hearing.

Furthermore, you don't have to be indicted or convicted to be guilt of a
crime. If you did it, you did it and you are guilty, Regardless how the
judicial process might later rule and punish you. Lots of guilty people are
found innocent every day, and vice versa.

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"Mike" wrote:
So you might want to start asking yourself how
someone who was subject to so much scrutiny able to escape without so
much as indictment for a charge you're so certain he committed.

While I elided much that I don't disagree with, I believe you are
incorrect
on the indictment aspect. Impeachment is roughly the legal equivalent of
an
indictment. Clinton was impeached on the perjury charge.

Hardly. An indictment charges a person with a crime. Impeachment is a
political process. The differences are spelled out in the US Constitution.

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
In article gqlsk.634$Ro1.600@trnddc04, "Mike"
wrote:

Courious how you name two R's but neglected to name John Edwards, the
most recent D?

Again, see above.

I did.

And you failed again.

Try it again. Slower. Work on your comprehension skills. Try to resist
the urge to snip out relevant parts in order to make your cherry picked
comments seem to match the context.

I don't play those silly games. Go try them on someone else.

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article Telsk.632$Ro1.589@trnddc04, "Mike"
wrote:

'The offense of willfulling telling an untruth in a court after
having taken an oath or affirmation."

You still don't have it right after two tries.

Take your complant to the people who wrote the dictionary.

You can search numerous dictionaries and most of them don't have all the
required elements required to support a federal case for perjury which a

(1) a false statement is made under oath or equivalent affirmation during a
judicial proceeding;
(2) the statement must be material or relevant to the proceeding; and
(3) the witness must have the specific intent to deceive.

That's the definition given by the USSC, which is the one that counts. Ken
Starr never came close to meeting that burden which is why he never so much
as attempted to indict Clinton for the crime of perjury. Giving misleading
but factually correct answers is not a crime. Providing answers you believe
are correct is not a crime.

So no matter how much you wish Clinton would have been convicted, he wasn't
even so much as indicted and for very good reason. Those are the facts.
Accept them and get over it.

Bertie the Bunyip wrote in news:g8t12f$4r4$1
@blackhelicopter.databasix.com:

"Jay Honeck" wrote in news:ZMlsk.312575
$yE1.98360@attbi_s21:

Now, what does all this have to do with piloting???

Nothing. Hence, the "OT" (Off Topic) subject heading.

IOW just another way for you to spam.

Corsi is a kook.
--
Pinku-Sensei
FNVW of AUK
Acting Pollmaster of AFA-B
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in rec.arts.marching.drumcorps
http://www.kookpedia.net/index.php/Alt.usenet.kooks
http://tinyurl.com/AUKFAQ

In article p_psk.621$482.231@trnddc06, "Mike" wrote:

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article Telsk.632$Ro1.589@trnddc04, "Mike"
wrote:

'The offense of willfulling telling an untruth in a court after
having taken an oath or affirmation."

You still don't have it right after two tries.

Take your complant to the people who wrote the dictionary.

You can search numerous dictionaries and most of them don't have all the
required elements required to support a federal case for perjury which a

And that is why we are apparently talking past each other. I am not a
lawyer and I am not concerned with what the law calls perjury. American-English
defines perjury as telling a lie under oath. Clinton did lie under oath.
That is a fact. Move on.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Next, you simply assume Clinton DID lie under oath. No such thing has
ever been proven despite a monumental effort to do so. So perhaps you
think you can succeed when much more qualified people have failed, but I
don't share your optimism. The legal case against Clinton failed. The
political case against Clinton failed. The popular opinion case against
Clinton failed. Perhaps in your own mind you succeeded, but I doubt you
had a high opinion of Clinton to lose in the first place. Furthermore the
price for those failures was equivalent of wiping your arse with the US
Constitution. Congratulations.

Many things failed during this process, not the least of which was our legal
system. When our president can lie on national television AND in the
courtroom, and not get punished in any way (in fact, in the long run he
profited from the affair) it's safe to say that our legal system has failed
utterly.

It's apparent that you hold the Presidency in lower regard than many of us,
and that you are happy to game the system so that it's perfectly fine for
lecherous old married men to pound on sweet young employees in the Oval
Office. The halls of power have always been filled with such men, enabled
by folks like you -- but I had hoped that we had moved beyond such things,
driven (not surprisingly) by the women's movement over the past 100 years.

In the end, the greatest irony of this whole thing is the deafening silence
emanating from the descendents of that same women's movement in the face of
Clinton's sexual abuse of a subordinate in the workplace -- precisely what
that movement has spent many decades fighting against. Stranger still how
many of these same women would later become supporters of Clinton's
cuckolded wife in her run for the presidency -- this the same humiliated
wife who behaved in precisely the same meek, door-mat style that the women's
movement has advocated against.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Nothing. Hence, the "OT" (Off Topic) subject heading.

IOW just another way for you to spam.

OMG! Is that a Bertie post accusing someone of spamming this group by
discussing politics!? ROTFLMAO!

That's the best laugh I've had in a long time. Although sadly it's not
about piloting, this is the best, least troll-polluted thread this group has
produced in a long, long time. It's actually made visiting this group
worthwhile, these last few days.

Dang, I may have to un-kill-file Bertie, if he's gonna be so funny...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"