Palin had side order of Rice before marriage

[RandFan]

This is ridiculous. When Clinton went into the hearing, the Repubs did not have some grand conspiracy to get him to perjure himself. Nobody knew what the outcome would be.

He perjured himself all by hisself.

That's a straw man.

 

[Tricky]

This is ridiculous. When Clinton went into the hearing, the Repubs did not have some grand conspiracy to get him to perjure himself. Nobody knew what the outcome would be.

He perjured himself all by hisself.

So do you want to answer the question?

Is there anything. Anything that they could have asked that you feel would have been so irrelevant as to not lead to perjury if he lied about it?

If not, why won't you answer it?

 

[Ziggurat]

Because you asked the question.

Since you're intent on diverting the conversation down a side road, let's make this simpler with a specific example of non-sexual perjury. Suppose Clinton was asked under oath about why a White House staffer was fired. Suppose this staffer was fired because Clinton discovered they were a registered Republican, but Clinton claimed it's because he underperformed. No sex involved. Would Republicans have tried to impeach if they could prove perjury? I think they would. Furthermore, I believe the argument that his impeachment was about the sex and not the perjury requires that they would not.

So, under this scenario, do you or do you not think that Republicans would have tried to impeach Clinton?

 

[Tricky]

Since you're intent on diverting the conversation down a side road, let's make this simpler with a specific example of non-sexual perjury. Suppose Clinton was asked under oath about why a White House staffer was fired. Suppose this staffer was fired because Clinton discovered they were a registered Republican, but Clinton claimed it's because he underperformed. No sex involved. Would Republicans have tried to impeach if they could prove perjury? I think they would. Furthermore, I believe the argument that his impeachment was about the sex and not the perjury requires that they would not.

So, under this scenario, do you or do you not think that Republicans would have tried to impeach Clinton?

I'll answer your question if you answer mine.

 

[RandFan]

Since you're intent on diverting the conversation down a side road, let's make this simpler with a specific example of non-sexual perjury. Suppose Clinton was asked under oath about why a White House staffer was fired. Suppose this staffer was fired because Clinton discovered they were a registered Republican, but Clinton claimed it's because he underperformed. No sex involved. Would Republicans have tried to impeach if they could prove perjury? I think they would. Furthermore, I believe the argument that his impeachment was about the sex and not the perjury requires that they would not.

So, under this scenario, do you or do you not think that Republicans would have tried to impeach Clinton?

I think that they would and probably should.

I've addressed your example will you address mine?

 

[RandFan]

Apparently only zigs examples are worthy of response.

It depends.

What did he lie about? You are speculating in a vacuum. Bad thing to do.

• Discretion.
• Fiduciary and ethical responsibility to use such powers with discretion.

Just because there is a technical violation doesn't mean there must be or should be charges. If he lied to protect a family member over something minor, if he lied to keep a promise to a close friend about something benign, then no. They damn well shouldn't bring charges and they likely wouldn't as to do so is a rather obvious ethical breach of discretion and ethics to just about anyone. It's the sex that puts it over the top. The violation of trust to his wife. This tends to blur the lines in some people's minds and divert attention from the abuse of power and lack of discretion.

Do you think they should or would bring charges?

 

[Ziggurat]

Okay, let's ask this then. Is there anything. Anything that they could have asked that you feel would have been so irrelevant as to not lead to perjury if he lied about it?

He wouldn't have in the example you gave. I see no relevance to such examples. Now that I've answered your question, answer mine.

Oh, and as a lawyer, Clinton probably expected that in a real court that question would have been objected to and thrown out, and if not, the case would have been reversed on appeal. But this was not a real court. This was a witch hunt.

He perjured himself in a real court. If you're talking about the impeachment being a witch hunt, well, what exactly do you think that proves? That they wouldn't go after him except for the sex? Sorry, but it suggests rather the reverse, that they would go after him for plenty of stuff other than sex.

 

[mhaze]

So do you want to answer the question?

If not, why won't you answer it?

Because the answer seemed, to me, transparently obvious.

Start here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury

The issue at question really is that of lying under oath, not the subject matter of the lie. And that doesn't extend to forgetting or misunderstanding the question.

one must have had the intention (mens rea) to commit the act, and to have actually committed the act (actus reus)

If you don't get it after reading this brief intro to the subject, there are more in depth references.

 

[RandFan]

He wouldn't have in the example you gave.

Asserting something doesn't make it true. He very well could have.

I see no relevance to such examples. Now that I've answered your question, answer mine.

That's not an answer.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think that they would and probably should.

Then why do you think it was about sex and not perjury? Since you think that they'd go after him for non-sex perjury (and I agree), why the resistance to the idea that the sex wasn't the point? It doesn't make any sense.

 

[Ziggurat]

Asserting something doesn't make it true. He very well could have.

You misunderstand my answer. I meant he wouldn't have been impeached.

 

[RandFan]

Now that I've answered your question, answer mine.

I answered your question now answer mine.

Apparently only zigs examples are worthy of response.

It depends.

What did he lie about? You are speculating in a vacuum. Bad thing to do.

• Discretion.
• Fiduciary and ethical responsibility to use such powers with discretion.

Just because there is a technical violation doesn't mean there must be or should be charges. If he lied to protect a family member over something minor, if he lied to keep a promise to a close friend about something benign, then no. They damn well shouldn't bring charges and they likely wouldn't as to do so is a rather obvious ethical breach of discretion and ethics to just about anyone. It's the sex that puts it over the top. The violation of trust to his wife. This tends to blur the lines in some people's minds and divert attention from the abuse of power and lack of discretion.

Do you think they should or would bring charges?

 

[RandFan]

Then why do you think it was about sex and not perjury? Since you think that they'd go after him for non-sex perjury (and I agree), why the resistance to the idea that the sex wasn't the point? It doesn't make any sense.

You DON'T have the decency to answer me as I have answered you. Answer me and I'll tell you why you are wrong.

 

[RandFan]

You misunderstand my answer. I meant he wouldn't have been impeached.

I'll get back to that when you answer my question.

 

[mhaze]

You misunderstand my answer. I meant he wouldn't have been impeached.

There would have been no grounds. Constitution Article 2, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and Misdemeanors.

The Republicans could not have initiated the inquiry with the intent of impeaching Clinton. What the actual offense would have been is typically called "Moral Turpitude". Again from Wikipedia:

The concept of moral turpitude escapes precise definition but has been described as an "act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man."

It would be rather laughable to censor a sitting President on such a charge, but that would have been what the House might have done if he'd admitted to his being a bad boy.

 

[Ziggurat]

You DON'T have the decency to answer me as I have answered you.

Let me clue you in about something, RandFan. I don't owe you anything. I don't owe you an answer, I don't even owe you any kind of response. And I make no claim that you owe me anything either. Any answers you provide to my questions are provided entirely of your own free will. I will answer the questions I choose to answer, and if I feel like getting around to your question, I might do so. But you have no right to make demands of me. And if you think that this is somehow equivalent to me demanding an answer from Tricky, well, I never promised you an answer, Tricky promised me one.

So until such time as I choose to answer your question, you'll just have to wait. And if you can't deal with that, perhaps you should choose something else to do with your time.

 

[BenBurch]

OK, admit it, Republicans; You were only upset about Clinton's dalliance because you know that no cute 20-something intern is going to lock the door to YOUR office and want to play "hide the badger."

 

[RandFan]

So until such time as I choose to answer your question, you'll just have to wait. And if you can't deal with that, perhaps you should choose something else to do with your time.

If you accept an answer and respond to that answer, then I think it is rather disingenuous to stomp your feet like a third grader yelling "you're not the boss of me!" (a little outrage zig?)

There there Zig. Poor thing, how dare anyone expect you to return a favor. Don't answer. I think your silence speaks volumes.

 

[SezMe]

Then why do you think it was about sex and not perjury?

Because of the politics of the matter. If they had gone after him for - following Tricky's example - lying about dental malpractice, the nation would have laughed at them. There are no dental peacocks strutting around. However, the capital is filled to overflowing with sexual morality peacocks. So is the ranks of the Reps (yes, and the Dems. But that is another thread.). So sex was the ONLY thing that could raise the hackles enough to change the impeachment efforts from inane to real.

 

[Tricky]

He wouldn't have in the example you gave. I see no relevance to such examples.

Okay, then you agree that there are some questions which, if lied about, would not, or at least should not lead to impeachment. My next question is, "Why is his sexual activity not one of those kinds of questions?"

But for now I'll answer your scenario.

Since you're intent on diverting the conversation down a side road, let's make this simpler with a specific example of non-sexual perjury. Suppose Clinton was asked under oath about why a White House staffer was fired. Suppose this staffer was fired because Clinton discovered they were a registered Republican, but Clinton claimed it's because he underperformed. No sex involved. Would Republicans have tried to impeach if they could prove perjury? I think they would. Furthermore, I believe the argument that his impeachment was about the sex and not the perjury requires that they would not.

So, under this scenario, do you or do you not think that Republicans would have tried to impeach Clinton?

I think that absolutely they would have tried to impeach him for this. They would have tried to impeach him for just about anything. Maybe even lying about brushing his teeth, they were that desperate.

I notice that you did not ask the larger question "Should he be impeached for perjury in this hypothetical case." In this case, my answer is "no". Hiring and firing of staffers is at the President's discretion. Even firing of appointed judges without good cause (as demonstrated during the Alberto Gonzalez affair) is not an impeachable offence, since they serve at the president's pleasure. Some may argue that Gonzalez should have been impeached (if he hadn't resigned) but I am not among those. It is possible that the fired staffers/judges might have right to sue the person who fired them in civil court for slander or libel (depending on the medium), but again, this comes nowhere near rising to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors".

So now I've answered your question, a great deal more directly and completely than you did mine, so I'll give you another chance to be straightforward.

If you agree (as you indicate above) that there are some questions which should not be tested for perjury if lied about, why do you think sexual behavior, when it is unrelated to the investigation, is not one of those questions? Don't come back with "it's perjury", because you've already agreed that some questions should not have a perjury test.