RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
sunmaster14 said:
Clinton lied under oath in the Paula Jones sexual harassment suit, not in his grand jury testimony. [snip] Clinton in, has absolutely nothing to do with entrapment.
Click to expand...
You can spin it any way you want to. I don't see it that way.

Starr, Issa, Gowdy... lost all credibility because they were biased in an all out absurdly partisan pursuit of the Clintons.

End of debate.

Clinton is a philanderer the same way hundreds of other legislators are philanderers. The Clintons are not evil.
 
16.5 said:
when questioned under oath, Attorney Bill Clinton had no choice but to lie!

And that is from a Clinton supporter? Oh lordy....

By the way, he then lied about it, again. They forced him to lie by asking him a question!

Fantastic!
Click to expand...


Yes, I'm enjoying the "They forced poor ol' Bill to lie by asking him what he did" spin.
 
shuize said:
Yes, I'm enjoying the "They forced poor ol' Bill to lie by asking him what he did" spin.
Click to expand...

You do know this is a straw man, right?

No one forced Bill to lie. Rather Starr set him up so he'd tell said lie while under oath. If said sworn testimony has a genuine purpose unrelated to setting Clinton up, that would not be entrapment. But if the only purpose of the sworn testimony was to set Clinton up, that is entrapment.

Obviously with such a partisan issue, there are many that will take either side. But objectively it's very clear that Starr's goal was getting Clinton, not getting justice for Jones who lost her case despite Clinton's sworn testimony.

Lewinsky's consenting BJ was unrelated to Jones' accusation of unwanted lewd advances. It was not relevant and did not show a pattern of sexual harassment, only evidence of consenting philandering.

Again, evidence of entrapment, not evidence of a pattern of behavior that supported Jones' claims.


At least address the real issue, not the one you built of straw.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Rather Starr set him up so he'd tell said lie while under oath.
Click to expand...
He still lied under OATH, as POTUS!
You have to know what a FAIL this is, every time you type it!
It has been explained to you repeatedly!
What was it Einstein said?



Priceless.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
I love the "it's been explained to you" nonsense when someone not only disagrees, but makes a case that is not addressed with the childish dismissal.

Address the entrapment charge, that is if you can without using mindless hand waving.
 
Dog Town said:
There isn't one!
Unless you can show, in a court of law, someone convicted with entrapment!
Yeah, you can't!

PS
Spinning makes one dizzy! Stop!
Click to expand...

This is rather ironic.

From Wiki:
Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, was impeached by the House of Representatives on two charges, one of perjury and one of obstruction of justice, on December 19, 1998. He was subsequently acquitted of these charges by the Senate on February 12, 1999.[1]
Click to expand...

Jones' lawsuit was dismissed by the court.

So what charges are you claiming again?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
This is rather ironic.

From Wiki:


Jones' lawsuit was dismissed by the court. Because she settled!

So what charges are you claiming again? Your charge by the way!
Click to expand...
Still a GIANT FAIL for your "argument"!

No entrapment charges, and what happened to his law license?
Stop spinning, it makes you...

Because "someone" seems confused:
Red is me!
 
Last edited:
Jones didn't settle, she lost her case and was paid to not appeal. Your changing of my quote is dishonest. Just like before, no attempt at any kind of rational discussion. Back on ignore you go.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
You do know this is a straw man, right?

No one forced Bill to lie ...
Click to expand...


A strawman?

Interesting. I wonder who wrote this:


Skeptic Ginger said:
I don't know who that is a picture of, Zig. But yes, lying about cheating is one thing. Forcing someone to lie under oath was entrapment ...
Click to expand...


Oh, that's right. You did.

So, yes, I'm enjoying the "They forced poor ol' Bill to lie by asking him what he did" spin.

Thanks for the opportunity to quote your own words back to you.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
More than one person.

Criminal Law and Procedure

"Some observers claim ..." Never investigated or invoked. If naked assertions are now fact you might want to review what you've been saying to others about this whole email thing.

Rather than vague concepts or naked assertions, lets take a look at an actual case http://openjurist.org/49/f3d/1162/united-states-v-brown

When testimony is elicited before a grand jury that is "attempting to obtain useful information in furtherance of its investigation", United States v. Devitt, 499 F.2d 135, 140 (7th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 975, 95 S.Ct. 1974, 44 L.Ed.2d 466 (1975), or "conducting a legitimate investigation into crimes which had in fact taken place within its jurisdiction", United States v. Chevoor, 526 F.2d 178, 185 (1st Cir.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 935, 96 S.Ct. 1665, 48 L.Ed.2d 176 (1976), the perjury trap doctrine is, by definition, inapplicable.

Asking questions about sex with people who work for him in a sexual harassment investigation is 100% on point.

In http://openjurist.org/440/f2d/304

In short, while a public employee may not be put to the Hobson's Choice of self-incrimination or unemployment, he is not privileged to resort to the third alternative, i.e., lying. The Supreme Court has squarely so held. United States v. Knox, 396 U.S. 77, 82 (1969).2 Judge Motley properly rejected appellant's testimonial compulsion claim.

Your claims have no merit.
Click to expand...
 
I chuckled at Sneering Hypocrite Hillary Clinton accusing Bernie Sanders of being "disloyal" to Obama, when this entire email scandal reveals her ignoring Obama's direct orders (not to hire Sid Blumenthal) and she made an utter travesty of his promise to be the Most Transparent Administration in history.

(plus, you know the whole Clinton 2008 most racist campaign in the last twenty five years, but that is a subject for another thread)
 
16.5 said:
I chuckled at Sneering Hypocrite Hillary Clinton accusing Bernie Sanders of being "disloyal" to Obama, when this entire email scandal reveals her ignoring Obama's direct orders (not to hire Sid Blumenthal) and she made an utter travesty of his promise to be the Most Transparent Administration in history.

(plus, you know the whole Clinton 2008 most racist campaign in the last twenty five years, but that is a subject for another thread)
Click to expand...

It says a lot when even Obama can't stand the Clintons. I bet he was pissed when he found out Blumenthal was in fact on the payroll.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom