Actual Quotes from OBAMA book

In article YNfsk.641$w51.45@trnddc01, "Mike" wrote:

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article LSesk.685$lf2.108@trnddc07, "Mike"
wrote:

There was no perjury.

He lied under oath. That, by definition, is perjury.

No it's not.

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


However your definition does demonstrate why you don't posses the knowledge
to argue such points.

Isn't my defintion.

Clinton was never convicted or even so much as
indicted for any such crime, or any other crime for that matter.

which does not mean he didn't lie.

It means he's innocent of perjury.

Presumed innocent by the legal system.


If you're
not familiar with the facts of the situation, you should better educate
yourself before you comment.

indeed.

Glad you agree.

If only others would educate themselves...

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

In article LSesk.685$lf2.108@trnddc07, "Mike"
wrote:

snip

Um, even if it did I think I have enough sense not to base an entire 8 year
presidency on that single act. I didn't really care that much when I heard
Gingrich cheated on and then dumped his hospitalized wife either, other than
the hypocrisy was interesting to note. So unlike some I apply those
standards equally.

Don't you mean 'the only one we found out about' in eight years?

snip

So does John McCain, who cheated on and dumped his first wife and mother of
his children after she was disabled, yet still voted to remove Clinton from
office for his extramarital affair. Apparently he wields enough influence
to get a Presidential nomination.

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

Um, even if it did I think I have enough sense not to base an entire 8
year presidency on that single act. I didn't really care that much when I
heard Gingrich cheated on and then dumped his hospitalized wife either,
other than the hypocrisy was interesting to note. So unlike some I apply
those standards equally.

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.

There was no perjury. Clinton was never convicted or even so much as
indicted for any such crime, or any other crime for that matter. If
you're not familiar with the facts of the situation, you should better
educate yourself before you comment.

Lying under oath is perjury.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:6Zcsk.256820$TT4.147231@attbi_s22:

You know what I feel about him, How???

Because your response is typical and I've seen it dozens of times
from those who try to "condemn" the man based on one act that had
practically zip to do with the job.

Um, it doesn't bother you that a seated (and married, sort of)
president used his power and influence to bop a cute (if slightly
plump) little intern in the Oval Office? If your school board
president was caught doing this, he'd be in prison right now. Yet the
president of the United States is above all that because he "otherwise
did a good job"?

What kind of standard is *that*?




One better than the standard that allows you to support a mass murderer.


Bertie

Bob Noel wrote:
In article LSesk.685$lf2.108@trnddc07, "Mike"
wrote:

There was no perjury.

He lied under oath. That, by definition, is perjury.

I hate to wade in here, being a libertarian and not caring to defend either
party, but the Senate tried him on the perjury count (among others). The
vote was 55 "Not guilcup" and 45 "guilcup" on the perjury charge. By
definition that is legal innocence or a party game of charades gone
horribly awry. If he had only mimed his answers he wouldn't have had to
worry about the perjury charge.

Call the next defendANT!

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:UWhsk.257146$TT4.104264@attbi_s22:

Um, even if it did I think I have enough sense not to base an entire
8 year presidency on that single act. I didn't really care that much
when I heard Gingrich cheated on and then dumped his hospitalized
wife either, other than the hypocrisy was interesting to note. So
unlike some I apply those standards equally.

Cheating on Hillary was never the offense. Using the power of his
position to gain sexual favors from an employee *was*.


Yeah? How did he do that, fjukktard?




Bertie

On Aug 24, 11:40 am, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
Um, even if it did I think I have enough sense not to base an entire 8
year presidency on that single act. I didn't really care that much when I
heard Gingrich cheated on and then dumped his hospitalized wife either,
other than the hypocrisy was interesting to note. So unlike some I apply
those standards equally.

I don't like any of that type of behavior. BUT, was Gingrich being
investigated in a sexual harassment charge? And, did Gingrich lie to
a grand jury?
And, did Gingrich conduct his dalliance on the floor of the Senate,
which some consider something akin to hallowed ground?


There was no perjury. Clinton was never convicted or even so much as
indicted for any such crime, or any other crime for that matter. If
you're not familiar with the facts of the situation, you should better
educate yourself before you comment.

Impeachment, which did occur, is a pretty good indictment.

Lying under oath is perjury.

Yes, it is. Even if you get away with it. He did, and he did,
mostly.

He would have gotten away cleanly, if the blue dress had been
laundered.

From Wikipedia (not always accurate, but generally a good starting
point):
"Upon the passage of H. Res. 611, Clinton was impeached on December
19, 1998, by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a
grand jury (by a 228-206 vote) and obstruction of justice (by a
221-212 vote). Two other articles of impeachment failed — a second
count of perjury in the Jones case (by a 205-229 vote) and one
accusing Clinton of abuse of power (by a 148-285 vote). Four
Republicans opposed all four articles, while five Democrats voted for
at least one of them. Upon passage of H. Res. 611, Clinton became the
first elected U.S. president and the second U.S. president to be
impeached..."

As I recall, after the impeachment, the Senate didn't feel strongly
enough to remove him from office. Hence the 45-55 outcome.

He didn't get impeached for his dalliances. He got impeached because
the investigations that started from a (presumably valid) sexual
harassment lawsuit wouldn't end, because more and more witnesses came
forward against him, and he lied (and otherwise evaded the truth) to a
grand jury after taking an oath. He was later found in contempt of
court, paid a fine, was removed from the Arkansas bar and chose to
resign from that bar.

The aftermath? Preteens and early teens don't think oral sex is sex,
and more people than ever think it's okay to lie if you really want
to.

If a society is to remain free (and it's always a struggle), the truth
has to be respected. If you, or I, or the president lies under oath,
there should be a swift and sure punishment. We've gotten away from
this--we're not after truth, but we are running a stage play. This
was brought home to me when I pursued a civil case. The defendants
had absolutely no leg to stand on, but I settled out of court because
their lies, wholly fabricated, would have been somewhat difficult to
prove as lies. At that point, going to the judge, who knows nothing
but what he hears, becomes a crapshoot. I got a small part of what
was owed me.

There is no doubt that much of the prosecution was politically
motivated. However, had he been less of a liar and miscreant, such
prosecution wouldn't have had much traction.

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

In article ,
Jim Logajan wrote:

He lied under oath. That, by definition, is perjury.

I hate to wade in here, being a libertarian and not caring to defend either
party, but the Senate tried him on the perjury count (among others). The
vote was 55 "Not guilcup" and 45 "guilcup" on the perjury charge. By
definition that is legal innocence or a party game of charades gone
horribly awry. If he had only mimed his answers he wouldn't have had to
worry about the perjury charge.

Legal findings are not necessarily consistent with actual facts.
OJ was acquitted of two counts of murder, which does not mean that he didn't
kill those two people.

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

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article YNfsk.641$w51.45@trnddc01, "Mike"
wrote:

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article LSesk.685$lf2.108@trnddc07, "Mike"
wrote:

There was no perjury.

He lied under oath. That, by definition, is perjury.

No it's not.

'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. The false testimony has to
be material to the case. A person can lie under oath all day long on
questions immaterial to the case and never be convicted of perjury, yet this
fits both definitions you provided. Again, it's obvious you have no clue
about the subject you attempt to argue.



However your definition does demonstrate why you don't posses the
knowledge
to argue such points.

Isn't my defintion.

It's the incorrect one you provided. That makes it yours. Either you
didn't know it was incorrect, or you knew it was incorrect and provided it
anyway for reasons one can only guess. Take your pick.



Clinton was never convicted or even so much as
indicted for any such crime, or any other crime for that matter.

which does not mean he didn't lie.

It means he's innocent of perjury.

Presumed innocent by the legal system.

Exactly. And anything contrary is a poorly based opinion. The Independent
Counsel investigation spent $100 million and the better part of a decade
trying to convict Clinton of anything and came back with nothing. Mr.
Honeck's suggestion that Clinton got off because of his position is
ridiculous to the point of hysteretics. In fact he was federally
investigated more than any human being in the history of the United States.
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.



If you're
not familiar with the facts of the situation, you should better
educate
yourself before you comment.

indeed.

Glad you agree.

If only others would educate themselves...

You still haven't gotten so much as the definition of perjury correct after
two tries. You might want to look at yourself first, but that's just a
suggestion.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:UWhsk.257146$TT4.104264@attbi_s22...
Um, even if it did I think I have enough sense not to base an entire 8
year presidency on that single act. I didn't really care that much when
I heard Gingrich cheated on and then dumped his hospitalized wife either,
other than the hypocrisy was interesting to note. So unlike some I apply
those standards equally.

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?


There was no perjury. Clinton was never convicted or even so much as
indicted for any such crime, or any other crime for that matter. If
you're not familiar with the facts of the situation, you should better
educate yourself before you comment.

Lying under oath is perjury.

I thought I had already told you that you might want to better educate
yourself before you continue to demonstrate your ignorance.