patrick.net

Dan8267 says

It is not Clinton's fault that the Republicans asked the wrong question and didn't have the brains to follow up with a "and by sexual relations you meant?" like any decent lawyer would have done. A person on trial has no ethical or legal obligation to answer questions in a way that would maximize damage to his reputation particularly when the answer and the question are irrelevant to the trial.

Exactly, this is exactly the technicality I suggested, to which you clearly have nothing else to say but the lawyers did a bad job.

Dan8267 says

Because that had absolutely nothing to do with this thread. This thread was about Republican congressmen flipping 180 degrees on policy as soon as their own children are the ones discriminated against. What the fuck does that have to do with the Clinton administration?

Because Clinton did the same 180... What was worse with Clinton is that he didnt even believe DOMA but signed it anyway, for purely political reasons. At least with some of the repubs you can make the argument that their opinions have honestly changed because of their personal experience. THe point of me even stating this is to prove that you are so biased that you rant about these repubs (who can arguably have good reason to change their stance on this subject), but you do not even mention and now defend Clinton for doing the same thing for an completely inexcusable reason.

Again, let me state this again since you never seem to answer this question. .. All I have been saying is that both the left and the right do stupid crap and are hypocrites. You very easily point out the faults of the right, but cant seem to admit the same shit flows on the left. Why do you get soooooooo defensive when someone points out the faults on the left??? You being the independent you claim you are, I would imagine you would just agree and move on, instead of being such a staunch defender of these crooks.

Meccos says

So do you honestly think that he didnt engage in any sexual activity????

In some countries, a female having lunch with an unrelated male is "sexual activity". It's one of those things that depends a lot on context. Rubbing someone's feet is that sexual, or not? Well depends on who's doing it, how they react, and who's watching.

Meccos says

Dan8267 says

And just because a person is found guilty doesn't mean that person did commit the crime, either.

So do you honestly think that he didnt engage in any sexual activity????

As your reading comprehension skills are obviously deficient, I'll repeat myself. I have no doubt that Clinton had lots of sexual activity with lots of women. That doesn't make Clinton guilty of perjury as the dumb-ass Republicans using the courts in contempt did not ask, "Did you have sexual activity with Monica Lewinsky?". Had the conniving Republicans asked, "Did you donkey punch Monica Lewinsky?", Clinton could also have truthfully answered "no" even though a donkey punch would most likely be construed as sexual activity.

Meccos says

Exactly, this is exactly the technicality I suggested, to which you clearly have nothing else to say but the lawyers did a bad job.

Actually, I've added quite a bit explaining to you that a defendant, even Clinton, has no legal or ethical obligation to provide answers outside the scope of the questions asked in questioning. Any fucking lawyer worse his salt will tell his client, answer the question asked and nothing more, and keep your answers short. This is exactly what Clinton did.

The Republicans were violating the ethics of the court system by attempting to entrap the president and by fishing for materials that had nothing to do with the case being heard and only would serve as political propaganda in the next election. The court would have been in its right and in its duty had it disbarred all the prosecutors for their unethical actions.

But I'll add something else. The prosecutors committed a crime by failing to disclose evidence (the Lewinsky cum-stained dress). This is a fucking serious offense.

The government has a continuing duty to disclose evidence after a request for disclosure has been made. It must promptly disclose additional evidence whenever it discovers it, even during trial.
...
The defendant is guaranteed the right to a fair trial. The government must follow the law and respect the rights of the defendant. If it fails to do so, it commits misconduct. There are many different types of misconduct. One of the most common is the withholding of evidence.

If the government fails to disclose relevant information, the court may impose a punishment on the party

The act of violating full disclosure laws goes against the very founding principles of this nation, and there is no excuse for it. All the Republican lawyers should have been disbarred and jailed for contempt of court and obstruction of justice. The only victim in this case was Clinton.

So Meccos, now that I've answered every single one of your questions several times, do you think you could grow a pair and answer these questions honestly and sincerely?

Or are you too afraid?

Dan8267 says

but torture, false imprisonment, and drone assassination does not.

"Well tell them to stop doing that shit, and we wont bomb them!"
G.W. Bush

CaptainShuddup says

Dan8267 says

but torture, false imprisonment, and drone assassination does not.

"Well tell them to stop doing that shit, and we wont bomb them!"

G.W. Bush

The retard Bush was lying when he said that. Notice that we don't bomb, torture, or assassinate Syrian President Bashar Al-assad, who is way the fuck worse than Saddam was.

Bush chooses his targets like any other predator. He picks the weakest ones. Bush and Obama don't have the balls to go after Al-assad, but they have no problem attacking a near defenseless country.

Dan8267 says

So Meccos, now that I've answered every single one of your questions several times, do you think you could grow a pair and answer these questions honestly and sincerely?

Or are you too afraid?

Hahahah you have answered about 10% of my questions. Feel free to browse through the MULTIPLE questions which you havent answered. I refuse to waste my time to link each one again. In regards to your question, why would I be afraid to answer your silly questions?

Dan8267 says

1. What punishment should Clinton get for his answers about Lewinski?

2. What punishment should Bush get for his lies about Iraq having WMDs?

3. What punishment should Bush get for starting the Iraq war?

4. What punishment should Bush and Obama each get for using torture?

5. What punishment should Bush and Obama each get for illegal wiretapping?

6. Is there anything else that Clinton should be punished for?

1. he should have been impeached
2. he should have been convicted of war crime and sentence to whatever punishment fits that conviction
3. same answer as #2
4. same answer as #2
5. whatever the courts would consider fair for illegal wiretapping
6. what other laws did he break?

Silly questions... the question you should have asked is do you think these idiots should have been convicted for these crimes first...